The rules of this blog are simple. Keep it clean and do not attack others for their views. Post your opinion in the comments section below (good or bad) on any candidate vying for nomination to challenge Debbie Stabenow. If you are citing specific items, please try to reference the source.
This blog is but one vehicle Ottawa County Patriot members can share, discuss and become aware of other opinions on candidates. For those of you who don’t know, the combined efforts of MI tea parties will culminate in a straw vote at a state wide convention to be held early next year. (date to be announced)
Detail of the vetting process, local (Ottawa County Patriots) participation and events leading up to the convention will be published in a separate section on this site soon.
Between now and the convention, MI tea parties will be involved in candidate education and vetting process culminating in a straw vote from each group to be cast at the statewide convention. Of note, the straw vote from each group does not constitute endorsement which violates most groups organizational structure. It is merely an opinion.
MI4CS, (Michigan for Conservative US Senate) does not have any organizational limitations prohibiting endorsement. It is a separate group which will publicize the results of a state wide vote. The candidate who “wins” this vote will have the support of all individual MI Tea Party members who have decided to unite in a single voice.
Certain other state and national groups have also pledged support and endorsement for the candidate who captures the the coveted prize represented by the united hearts and minds of Tea Party members.
The media has also taken notice of this effort as detailed in this Detroit news piece.
While blogs may be anonymous, your opinion may be more credible if you are willing to identify yourself.
Edited, Nov 27 at 3:30 PM.
Comments about the MI4CS process itself are also welcome as long as they are about the process and not attacking other people who comment.
Posted on Facebook, Linked in, Stumble, Digg and Twitter.
My choice selection has been reduced to 3 candidates Randy Hekman, Gary Glenn, and Pete Konetchy.
Agree with Kenneth. Prefer Glenn as he has more exposure, but all three good men.
Went to Liberty Meeting in Richland. A senatorial debate was held. Peter Hoestra didn’t show nor did Debbie who were invited. Scotty A Boman spoke for small gov’t, Constitutional law and liberty. He is young with experience and has run for office against Democrats many times. I have petitions to sign to have him placed on the ballot. bhcamp47@yahoo.com
Scotty Boman is the only candidate that truly supports and understands the meaning of limited small govt. This is who we need .
I’ve know Scotty Boman for years. He is the most consistent liberty candidate we have.
Being on Konetchy’s campaign team my choice is obvious and there are very sound reasons I resigned from a very cushy U.S. Congressional staff job to work for Peter Konetchy. But the tea parties endorsing one candidate even if it is mine, cause me grave concerns. To start with, Cindy Gamrat who I have great respect for should not be in the position in this process she is simply because she is campaigning to get Gary Glenn elected and I think anyone in that position should be as fair and unbiased as possible. This can’t be a platform to use the tea parties to get your candidate elected. Next is the fate of the tea parties themselves. Saul made the statement that the tea parties will not last more than another year to which at first I chuckled at. But if the tea parties endorse one candidate then he may just be right. This could be the tool that finally breaks the tea parties up. If we tell tea party members who to vote for then we have sunk to the level of the unions or at best, have just become a new arm of the G.O.P. The tea parties are around to educate the electorate and protest the status quo of the past. The reason we have been so strong to date is that we Don’t endorse any one candidate but rather let our membership decide for themselves through the vetting and educating. I did see the tea parties make a huge difference in the outcome of the 2010 elections which I was a major part of in Michigan’s 1st district. But that is because they were a show of force of what happens when the average American becomes not only politically aware, but politically active. If a few decide to be elitests and decide to tell the rest of the tea party members “this is who we want you to vote for” and imply the average member cannot make that decision on their own merit, then sadly I think Saul’s prediction will be right. I belong to ACE (Americans for Constitutional Enforcement) founded 16 years ago with 400 active monthly members and over 1000 members on paper through the years. We are the oldest tea party in Michigan (even though we were not invited for representation in Plainwell) and the key to our longevity is that we never as a group endorse any one candidate. Our members usually do univerally support the same candidate but that is left to their decision. If this plan goes through, I do not want to see it on the fast track with an endorsement in January. This would just prove corruption. Wait until the candidates have filed their nominating petitions in May to be sure they are actually candidates in the first place! Pushing through someone in January so that after telling the tea party members who to vote for they can tell the members to now go get signatures for that candidate would be corruption at it’s highest degree. I’d also like to see all candidates get fair and equal treatment which has NOT happened to this point. This is simply my humble opinion, and unlike some I will not force it on others as gospel.
I have attended two events where Cindy spoke. In neither did she in any way reflect a bias or did I even get the impression she had a personal favorite let alone who that may have been. I didn’t attend the Plainwell debate on Nov 19th but did attend in a debate in Dewitt a couple months ago. Cindy had nothing to do with the Dewitt debate so I don’t see how she could have influenced it. .
From what I have seen, I believe the model for MI4CS eliminates any one person’s influence over the outcome. Unlike the GOP convention where the delegate voting was confused and likely skewed by alternates and double alternates, everything about the MI4CS plan tells me that voting will be tightly controlled and limited strictly to credible Tea Party groups and two voting delegates from each. Delegates and even members attending the convention must also be registered from a valid group.
There has been other detractors of Cindy, but that wasn’t directed at her potential to influence the outcome, rather her “taking the spotlight”. I disagree with that assessment also. In anything, Cindy promotes local groups to be there own voices and reach out to the media.
In our group, we plan to use a number of inputs, including the vetting efforts of ICAUCUS, our own observations and opinions of the candidates who have spoken before our group and most importantly individual members’ own research.
Our vetting process will culminate with a candidate forum on Jan 24th, at which time our group will hold a straw vote. I have spoken with Pete and he was was to speak at our meeting on Nov 8. This was my mistake and conflicted with the “tailgater” to which I told Pete he was welcome to attend but that no candidates would have the microphone. Several did attend.
With a short time frame between now and Jan 24, I’d like to have Pete speak before our group. We meet only twice each month so it doesn’t leave many options. Please contact me ASAP.
I cannot think of a more fair and unbiased approached to combining the voices of all Tea Party members in MI who wish to be part of a united front.
If you have specifics as to why you think Cindy may influence the outcome, I would like to hear them.
Jim I will contact you ASAP as you are requesting but I need your contact information. I can be reached at Keith@PeterKonetchy.com anytime and look forward to hearing from you soon as this is time sensitive. Thank You.
Good post Keith, and I share your concerns. I’ve already seen some Tea Party leadership actively campaigning against candidates, who just a few years ago, would have been considered the heart and soul of the tea parties. Core Tea Party values of liberty and Constitutionalism, have been replaced, by many, with social issues.
I’ve known Saul for years, and he, like most establishment Republicans, are like the Energizer bunny. They will wear you down and firmly believe in a policy of hold your friends close, but your enemies closer. The Republicans should fear the Tea Parties and if they Tea Parties are not willing to turn their back on the Republicans, if the situation warrants it, we have no power.
Dear Keith,
You made several statements above, that are simply not true!!!
First, the new entity of Michigan4ConservativeSenate is simply made up volunteers from many of the TEA Party/912/Liberty Alliance groups we could find,…and invited to attend our first organizational meeting in DeWitt, MI on 11-12-11. Perhaps your group as the “oldest tea party in Michigan for over 16 years “, has NOT attended or been active with other TEA Party groups meetings/events and was not found on the internet via Google searches and other means. Additionally, the TEA Party movement didn’t really take it’s current form until March/April 2009,…so I don’t know what your group has been doing for the past 16 years.
Do you not feel that Peter Konetchy can win the MI4CS Straw Poll? If not,…why? He has been invited, and has said he will participate. Peter has traveled the entire state and has spoken at many TEA Party groups. He has a solid constitutional platform, with less government intervention and fiscally responsible solutions to our Country’s problems.
If Peter wins, he will be helped in getting signatures for his qualifying petitions, fund-raising will increase and he will get media attention which will cause other larger organizations and PACS to support his campaign. Why would you be against this?
ALL the Candidates will be given a fair and transparent opportunity to shares his views and convince those participating that they are the best person that represents and shares our values.
Each group will have two (2) votes in the straw poll, (paper ballots with secure ballot counting methods). This will allow a group that is split on their decision to support a candidate, so they will have an option to vote for two different candidates.
Finally, NO ONE is “going to tell” ANYONE how to vote!!! We will have a vetting process, a convention/debate and then a fair and open straw poll vote.
You stated above,…”Our members usually do univerally support the same candidate but that is left to their decision.” WE are doing the same thing,…nothing less/nothing more!!!
Why are you and many other Konetchy supporters against this effort?
Randy Bishop
Randy, Thank you for exactly the kind of comment I envisioned for the blog. No, I’m not talking about who you support. Rather the fact that you simply are offering something positive about the candidate you support without suggesting negative behavior of another candidate or member of MI4CS. In addition, you correctly put the process of MI4CS in perspective. As you stated, no one is “telling” anyone else how to vote.
Ironically, despite media suggestion that the Tea Party is dead or irrelevant, this process proves otherwise. In fact, there actually seems to be some jealousy of the Tea Party’s impact. I have seen this locally where a national figure who has espoused conservative values has erroneously been described as the “father of the Tea Party”. Although this “father” label has also been used by the media, as Randy also correctly indicated, the movement movement started in 2009 and continues to be a grass roots with no “father” or other figure head.
Keith has made some comments which I disagreed with above and I hope he better understands what MI4CS is now.. He indicated since Cindy is part of the organization, it brings bias. As Keith stated he clearly is in Pete Konechy’s camp. While our group has not had the pleasure of hearing Pete speak due to scheduling problems, I have heard good things about him
However, if Keith were as part of a tea party or other group were to join and be one of many volunteers with MI4CS, should he be rejected or told to stay far away from the process to eliminate perception of bias? The same could be asked of Randy or myself in addition to Cindy who may or may not have a personal favorite candidate. To my knowledge none of us work on a campaign staff as does Keith.
Keith mentioned a group he infers has been part of the Tea Party for 16 yrs. Perhaps the group shares TP principles. I have no problem with that as the “Tea Party movement” which built from obscurity in early 2009 doesn’t require any kind of “union card” for authenticity. The movement united other entities and includes dozens with names like “Conservatives, Patriots and others”. There is even one with a strange name, “Rattle With US”. This is a clever reference to the snake on the Gadson flag. While none are in the limelight of Fortune 500 companies, they have joined their voices with and made their presence known to hundreds of other Tea Party groups via face to face events and online.
I understand the current effort, uniting Tea Party groups across the state required more than looking under “Tea Party” in the phone book or an SEC filing. Others may have been missed because they didn’t have a Goodyear blimp advertising their presence, (or even a paper flier tacked on a library wall), then perhaps they missed the Tea Party boat. While there was no blimp, there certainly was enough media attention (often negative) over the past 3 yrs. Did these other groups make an decision to exclude themselves from the modern movement? If so, that may be why no one knew they existed.
In closing, I hope we have more positive input from others about he candidate they support. Rather than platitudes, or campaign slogans, it would be nice to see statements, indicating where candidates stand on major issues.
As a reminder, “The rules of this blog are simple. Keep it clean and do not attack others for their views. Post your opinion in the comments section below (good or bad) on any candidate vying for nomination to challenge Debbie Stabenow. ”
Jim and Randy Bishop, Keith has indicated who he supports yet neither of you have. Perhaps just take it off-line with Keith. His e-mail is: Keith@PeterKonetchy.com
Jeff, you correctly quoted the rules. Since the blog is not just about candidates, I assumed there would be comments about the MI4CS process. There is more text about the process than, “who do you like?”. In fact, I will edit the blog to reflect this. Comments (even critique) of the process are welcome but i would caution against allegations of undue influence of one person, implying a character issue.
I also think you give me or other Tea Party members too much credit to think that Cindy, I or others would “tell other Tea Party members how to vote”. If you do, you completely miss-understood the concept of MI4CS. It is Tea Party members who are telling MI4CS their candidate preference, not the other way around.
“Jim”
I didn’t give you any credit as to what Cindy thinks. I don’t know who she is. I just agreed in general with Keith. MI4CS appears to be just another false front for some to push their agenda.
In any case, the question wasn’t about MI4CS, it was about specific candidates. Do you have an opinion, whoever you are?
I have just added Scotty Bowman to my list of Randy Hekman, Pete Konetchy or Gary Glenn.
Very probably I will not have and answer for some time yet. I hope to get to a forum somewhere with all the candidates are available to hear.
And my vote is always subject to change.
I will re-post the link again in a few days.
Thanks for providing this forum!
As I narrow down my list of favorite candidates by reading, hearing debates, etc, I await the results of iCaucus vetting as the most rigorous process I know.
My understanding of Cindy’s informative presentation at the last OCP meeting was that Freedomworks had given their word to back out of Michigan’s Tea Party process and await the results of the straw poll. This relieved my mind, because their early endorsement of Clark Durant frankly appalled me. (No, he’s not on my short list. History in the system too long, delivery too slippery smooth, and too many shades of the truth. Jim and Ken, I hope that’s within the rules! If not, please let me know to trim my sails.)
Today, however, I received this email:
Dear Abigail,
I wanted to let you know that a few weeks ago the FreedomWorks grassroots team participated in a historic gathering of tea party activists in Michigan. Group leaders from all over the state traveled to DeWitt to discuss forming a statewide alliance in support of a conservative candidate for U.S. Senate in 2012.
A group called Michigan 4 Conservative Senate organized the event and proposed a nominating process by which the various tea party groups will ultimately unify behind a single candidate. Also in attendance were representatives from Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate, who shared their experiences helping to unify a similarly diverse coalition in Indiana.
As you know, when the tea party works together it is the most powerful force in American politics today. The model being implemented in Indiana and Michigan represents one of the most effective ways for grassroots activists to help nominate and elect true constitutional conservatives nationwide.
For that reason, FreedomWorks is excited to see the results of this historic process as it plays out across the country and to assist in any way we can. Our PAC has not endorsed any candidate in Michigan, but we look forward to working closely with the vibrant coalition of tea party groups who will play a vital role in choosing the Wolverine State’s next Senator.
Which candidate for Senate in Michigan do you think most deserves the support of the tea party? Send an email to mpappas@freedomworks.org to let us know who and why.
Sincerely,
Matt Kibbe
President and CEO, FreedomWorks
As you can see, they claim to be working closely with MI4CS. Yet MI4CS is in the vetting stage, and this email is requesting a poll. I’m no chess player, but a blind man can see how results could be used to influence the straw poll. Cindy very kindly and quickly replied to my concerns, saying:
“This letter was sent out from Freedomworks to the people who have signed up with Freedomworks. Freedomworks is a totally separate organization than MI4CS. They have no votes or no part in our process whatsoever of who the MI TEA Parties select. However, asking them to not communicate with or poll their membership is unreasonable.”
I will let readers judge how well these statements match.
My primary concern with the MI4CS process, however, is the final part of the plan for reaching a straw poll conclusion. In my opinion, there should be no convention, no representative/ delegates, no separate meeting of leaders, just a transparent website available to each Tea Party group for full transparency and local control of the vote. (GoogleDocs has capability to do this, even with multiple run-off votes.) There is already a boatload of suspicion that the Tea Party endorsement is being exposed to influence or even theft. This is the best way I know of to keep it open, scotch those suspicions, and give us a chance at true unity of mind and purpose.
I apologize for the lengthy post: there just seemed a lot to say. Thank you again for the opportunity for input!
Abagail, you sails are set fine and thank you for you thoughts. At the Dewitt meeting, Freedomworks was called out for publishing the results of an earlier poll. A representative promised to retract that supposed “winner” and wait until the MI4CS results were in.
Apparently, they went half way and another poll request seems premature. Regarding the convention, yes, technology does provide a mechanism. However, as much as we are suspicious of the media, we do need them.
If one were to ask, “who is the tea party”, it could simply apply to those who come to meetings or are on email lists and Tea Party web sites. However, I think it is much bigger than that. The Tea Party is not just those who are involved. It is a state of mind and a movement that is far broader. Some in the media (and the White House) would believe the Tea Party is dead.
To borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, “Rumors of the death of the Tea Party are greatly exaggerated”. It is very much alive and well. However, the media needs to be reminded. Also the great many people who share the common goals of the Tea Party need to see some evidence of this.
If a great deal of the populace doesn’t attend meetings or frequent web sites, the only way they know we are alive is via the media. The media tried their best early on to ignore us but finally realized the sentiment we hold is in the majority. The hoopla of a convention will attract media attention as did the meeting on Nov 12 and served a similar function in Indiana. We may disdain the media but we need them.
Here in Michigan there are multiple, good candidates running for US Senate. Any one of them would be an improvement over Stabenow. MI4CS will narrow that down to one. Perhaps compared to shameless commercialism, we need to advertise that winner. The media is the only way to do that.
Jim, I think it’s great to use the media. But we don’t have to do it the way the parties do, in a convention. We’re known as a grassroots movement. What would be wrong with an admittedly less spectacular, but more accurate event, drawing the attention of local media to local Tea Party groups? IMO, though the reports would be less standardized, they would be more broad-based and likely to draw more members. The qualifications have already been set for who may vote in the local straw poll. Are you saying the leaders at the convention would somehow represent more than those who qualify or show up locally?
I agree with Ken and others that feel January is premature to complete this process. Besides the fact that the Primary is in August, the filing deadline is what–March? And as we see with the presidential race, new facts hit the press every day.
Trucker Randy,
To answer your last question, it’s probably because Konetchy supporters are the only that understand the Constitution as well as have answers to our problems by following the Constitution. Furthermore:
Even if it won my candidate the election, I would feel I was selling my soul by destroying the Tea Party which I have bee passionately involved with since it’s inception.
Can we tell tea party members “who they have to vote for” after your vetting is done?
If we did we would be the next arm of the GOP or the next Union. that’s all.
Peter Konetchy is the most conservative candidate running. His knowledge of the Constitution can not be questioned. He believes in a smaller government and the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
Have not made up my mind, Konetchy is probably the most Conservative, Hoekstra has the name recognition, and others also have good platforms. I know many in the Tea Party seem to despise Hoekstra, but ability to win does need to be a factor. Sadly the majority of voters will base their decision on slick ads, and money and the media will be a big factor. We can help to influence this, through education, and providing a platform for the better candidates to get their message out at our meetings. I myself supported the Underdog in some of the primary races in 2010. But when it came down to brass tacks, I went to the local gop office, and grabbed literature for all the candidates.
I have had the opportunity to hear Konetchy and Heckman speak 3 times, and have met all of the candidates face to face, We are in the same conundrum here as in the presidential race. I heard all the candidates at the April 15th AFP event in Lansing, got the chance to talk one on one with Gary Glenn at the Hudsonville Tea Party tailgater. He will be our guest speaker at the Tea Party of Grand Rapids Town Hall on Jan 26th (more info here http://rivercitypatriots.ning.com/events/town-hall)
Anyone except the incumbent will be the better choice.
The good news is we do not have any Huntsmans in the race.
I have a lot of respect for Abby, but From what I have learned about MI4CS, and having met Cindy in the past, I believe MI4CS will be a positive alternative to icaucus, and will help avoid the “marching orders” mentality that plagued WMI during the last election.
Cindy also understands the necessity of using the media to get the message out, and allying with larger national groups, with deep pockets. (IC tax records showed reported donations of $6,343.27 as of oct 2010( ref here http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00461764) the last date any filings were made to the FEC. Freedomworks had reported donations of $688,000 for the same period, and has announced a $12mil fundraising goal for 2012. While we all wish money was not part of the formula, it is, as has been proven in recent events in Ohio, and WI.
I believe MI4CS may be the best opportunity to get the financial support a true Conservative will need to compete in this race. Otherwise the option will be to go with Hoekstra, and the backing of the GOP money sources. Not that I do not like Pete, have met him multiple times, and worked hard on his campaign for Governor. Yes He has made some bad votes, anyone with his time in office has. But he has overall high ratings from most Conservative groups. (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/26910/pete-hoekstra). And the progressives hate him even more than his Conservative detractors.
MI4CS may also help repair some of the bad press that occurred during the last cycle when last minute programs were pushed by some delegates, resulting in the fiasco at the state convention, and again at the local district convention. while the goals may have been laudable, the lack of organization, and last minute planning resulted in statewide negative press.
A note about making comments. When set up, the blog did not require me to “approve” comments. Now the stupid thing wants me to approve each. This sucks, I don’t have time for this. I’m calling the web guy ASAP.
Well said Abigail and Ken.
@jim/Abby
Jim you have a very good point. What would have been the impact in the last election without the national coverage garnered by the huge events held by groups like TPP, TP Express, AFP, and others. Locally we have a hard time getting press coverage, especially positive coverage, (although Jim Chiodo, and the Gals from Hudsonville seem to do a better job at it than most), and unfortunately some local “leaders” discourage the press involvement, undermining getting the message out.
Does anyone think the huge DC marches and Rallies would have drawn the numbers they did without FNC and Glenn beck covering them? I had a long talk with Cindy Gamrat today, in person, and in no way did I come away from the meeting with the idea that the plan is to “tell people who to vote for”. The opposite of the experience I and many others got when dealing with Icaucus in the last election. Nor did she ever mention who she supports personally, something I know only because others are sending out a lot of negative information, trying to undermine the process.
Regarding the convention date: It is not set in stone and the amount of work to be completed likely precludes a January date. Yes the filing date is later (March?) and the primary not till August. With the primary two months before the general election, it is a significant incumbent advantage.
Rereading Abigai’s comment, I paused at “qualifications have already been set for local straw votes” as somehow a negative. First, MI4CS is a coalition of Tea Party or similar groups. Locally, Ottawa County Patriots is part of that coalition. Who can vote? Obviously, members of OCP are those who would vote. I’m not sure if anyone thinks voting be open to the public which could include Democrats or members of groups diametrically opposed to Tea Party principles, including those who openly denigrate the TP. It is for this reason (and compliance with tax status) the OCP adopted a set of by-laws. A formal membership registration is in progress and is one of the reasons why the January convention date would be very difficult.
Time works against unifying a grass roots group. Establishment candidates and supporters would like to delay the process. They know the Tea Parties do not have any top down direction. As a result, votes are often splintered among multiple candidates, resulting in less than 50% mandate to the winner. In the 2nd Congressional district 2010 primary the nominee received less than 30% of the vote, (hardly a mandate)
What does unifying mean? No one, (not any tea party leaders, outside groups or leaders of MI4CS), is suggesting or dictating who individuals should vote for. The decision by each tea party member to participate or not participate and unify behind a single candidate is an individual choice. Transparency of the process and security of delegate voting insures no one has undue influence.
@Jim Very well said.
I have to agree with Keith on this one. This is the one argument that I have with many Tea Partiers. The one thing I have no problem with is vetting the candidate, but when these Tea Partiers start endorsing a candidate because they have the finances to win or think an underdog candidate cannot make it, how can they say that until they put their all in all behind the right candidate no matter what their status or ability to complete.
This is what totally irks me. As grassroots people, I being one of them, once I decide who is the best, I don’t care if they don’t have enough money to compete against the big dog. That mentality is EXACTLY what establishment mentality is all about and why we keep ending up with the same losers in office.
It is time to start thinking outside the box. It is time to start looking for leaders, not for just political candidates. You want a leader that can help lead this country. We need to start looking for levels of integrity. We need to start looking into the vetting processes of how to find a man or woman of character, integrity, boldness….. instead what do we do? Seek all the same garbage that we grip about year after year.
Keith, I completely agree. It is time for us to quit comparing the ability to compete against Stabenow and start looking at the right candidate, whoever that may be. I know who I am stepping behind, but I’m sure not going to let an establishment Tea Party mentality break down what the grassroots has worked so hard to build up.
P.S. I forgot…. look back at the Founders. When the decided to cut off from Great Britain, did they have numbers and stats to fall back on? NO! What did they decide? On principles. The Declaration of Independence talks about those principles and what they did not want. The Founder’s stood by those principles. This is exactly what we need to start doing in this nation. If we don’t find a candidate worthy of those principles, then its time to go shopping and encourage someone who has them to step forth. But now what happens is that an unknown gets crucified by the politics and stats of the situation. That is unfair and totally unlike our Founders. Our Founding Fathers would be VERY disappointed in us. When do we start electing people on principle? Besides, did you ever think of this….. if a man or woman stands on principle, isn’t the vetting already done for you because of what they stand for?
Sabrina,
I agree with your 100% on grass roots principles, but confused about “tea party” endorsement of a candidate based on “can he win” or “does he have enough money”. If those were important, the whole MI4CS process would be a waste of time. I know there are some in the Tea Party that want the establishment GOP to decide on a candidate. Clearly, there are a great many in our Tea Party and (from what I’ve seen) in other groups, that evidence they would support anything but an establishment candidate.
The whole process of MI4CS is about vetting the candidates. As I look at all the comments on this post, I see only one who has a personal issue with me because I don’t support the Presidential candidate he does and has been very rabid about it on another forum
On a separate post “MI4CS”, I summarized what I hope to be our (Ottawa Patriots) approach to vetting and narrowing down candidates for a straw poll of our own members. I also talked about “who is a member of Ottawa Pats). This is to clarify for our own purposes as part of organizational issues associated with our incorporation. If we are going to have a straw vote to reflect Tea Party member’s opinions, then it should be members as opposed to some of the liberals from down town Holland.
See to me processes just equate to more problems down the road. It is the slippery slope to regulations and government intrusion, etc.
In vetting the candidates, what are you honestly looking for? Seriously, what is the purpose of vetting? What type of person does it get you?
You say you agree with me 100%. Then why can’t we get out of this mentality. Start looking for leaders. True leaders are not going to be perfect but they are going to have the heart of a servant. Have you ever experienced a great leader in your life? If not, that’s sad. But truly what were the. Haracteristics of a great leader? Did they lie? How do you know they didn’t? How did they conduct themselves in public and private? You always notice these things about a great leader even if you didn’t always agree with them, they earned your respect. How is that any different from choosing a senate candidate? If we are looking for all these leadership qualities, the vetting has already been done.
Look at what makes a great leader. Does a candidate possess all those qualities or not? If not, then they need to be dismissed period. All these other methods lead to the exact same problem we are at now. It is time to get out of this mentality. I’m not going to apologize for stepping on toes because we are at a critical time. Are we just play acting getting our country back or are we actually going to stand on principles?
I’m tired of “doing” politics. I want someone I can respect in office. And if I’m wrong in the end, I’ve eaten enough crow to know it tastes like chicken, learn the lesson and move on. Are we at this point in Michigan yet? Do we even realize who the grassroots are? They aren’t organizations anymore.
You ask “who am I looking for?” as if I (or any one person) was MI4CS. Are you under the impression that MI4CS is a top down plan? Do you think that some undefined group is doing the vetting and handing down recommendations to tea party members?
That is 180 degrees from what MI4CS is. It starts with individuals. Each member answers the questions you asked and more. Each is use his her own best ability to look for leader, decide how to measure their worth, ask if they lie and much more. It is the opinions of these qualifications as determined by individuals that drives the vetting. (not someone or a regulatory group) doing the vetting and telling him or her how to think.
I get the feeling you are against the process, but I wonder how you would equate MI4CS compared to the patriots who met in taverns, etc to discuss and talk about resistance, then revolution from Great Britan. How would you equate the ministers and other church members who got the townspeople to support a revolution (many of them were passive).
This was the “revolutionary process” which began in back rooms and around kitchen tables and resulted in the Declaration a form of “regulation. At what point does grass roots thinking turn into “politics”?
Perhaps individual grass roots patriots could have fought the war with Great Britain from their kitchen table without going to a battle field. What if there was no “regulation” and planning to cross the Deleware, to move troops to other strategic places against the Brittish? Do you label all of that politics too?
If the Tea Parties don’t come together on the battle field of ideas and agree (without coercion) to march in the same direction, they they will scatter in front of the enemy to defeat. Without some coalesced effort by the tea party, money and politics will continue to give us the legislators that “taste like chicken”
And I think you are misunderstanding me although I tend to understand why it appears like that. But I think that the overall feeling is that it is getting to be too establishment feeling. Personally I like the ability to directly ask a candidate in person or via email and hear from them directly. My personal experience has been any time I have had to go third party to have someone communicate my concerns or ideas, they end up being replaced by an agenda. It’s something I warn strongly against.
Talking principles is something we should be doing, but I’m noticing from Tea Partiers in Michigan that it is going right back into politics. When I talk to people in my local arena, many are not into candidates, etc. so if you were to talk laws, bills, proposals, etc you would lose them after “Hi my name is…”
People are wanting to look at candidates differently. They want to know what makes any candidate not fall into the same pressure of others in the office. Their exact words are “Who does it matter who I vote for they all become the same as the previous.”
So explain to me how your process proves people’s concerns? Tell me how real people are asking vetting questions to this effect?
The Founder’s talked to people on their level. They found the passion within each person’s soul and went from there. This isn’t about vetting. This is about the passion to get our country back. Do whatever process you desire. They did their battle from the pulpits. How many churches carried guns and went out to battle.
We need to unite, but we need to quit worrying about the stats and vetting. Finding the true leaders will vet themselves and the desires and qualities are going to rise to the surface. Will your process exposé leaders or will it just expose weaknesses that everyone has?
Chill out. TeaPartys do not endorse. If they do, actually whatever they call themselves is incorrect.
The first issue I have with this manufactured process is the idea that 100+ voters in Michigan who belong to a Tea Party group (whose legitimacy is based on criteria set by a woman who is a recent transplant from Indiana and a man who is clearly and openly supporting Gary Glenn) will choose a candidate who they will represent to tens of thousands of people in Michigan as “our candidate.” Some of us are limited by geography and don’t have Tea Party groups in our area. I, like many others have chosen to form a PAC or organization in an effort to effect change in 2012. Our PAC recently held an activist training program that was co-sponsored by Americans For Prosperity, The Frederick Douglass Foundation and American Majority. We had over 100 people attend, many of whom identified themselves as Tea Party people. I mention this training as evidence that you don’t have to be a part of a TP to be considered legitimate, you simply have to make a difference in the grassroots or TP movement to preserve conservative values and promote liberty. Leisa Audette and I were asked by Cindy Gamrat through one of our co-founders to attend this so called MIC4S forum. We chose not to attend. It wasn’t until later that we realized the idea was to ordain a “Tea Party candidate” for US Senate that we started making phone calls to express our concern about this process. When I spoke with Trucker Randy, he informed me that I did not meet the criteria set by a few of these self-appointed TP leaders. TP people are some of the most educated people in the political process. The idea that we 110 people need to determine (for me) who I should or should not support is really much like the Republicans or Democrats rallying support behind a candidate in a primary in order to establish a winner before the election. It really flies in the face of everything the TP believes in. The TP is not an organization and it will be the downfall of this movement when a few people let the power of their positions take them to a place where they should not “TREAD.”
I debated whether to delete your post as it violates the simple rules expressed in the blog introduction, prohibiting personal attacks. Your post not only attacks individuals but anyone who considers himself a tea party member and the Tea Party movement itself. We have seen this level of attacks by the left and the media since day one. It is uncertain where motivation for your attack originates. However, I will leave your post as an example of what will not be tolerated. Continued attack posts will be deleted.
Clearly you do not understand the process. This is evident in your comment which includes, “110 people need to determine (for me) who I should support…..” Given the level of anger expressed in your post, it is unlikely you will understand an explanation. However, I will try:
Cindy Gamrat nor any 110 people are telling anyone who to vote for. Nor is any Tea Party endorsing or telling anyone who to vote for. Rather, the process that you label “manufactured” is an attempt to coordinate the opinions of tea party members all over the state. This is done by bringing two representatives from every tea party group who will participate in a straw vote, These delegates are not expressing their own opinions. They are conveying opinions of members they represent. No vote is binding on anyone.
It is true there are not tea party groups in every geographical area of the state. Some members have solved this by through sacrifice of their own time. Although I was “transplanted” from another state (27 yrs ago) I believe any resident of MI could reach an active tea party group in an hour or so of driving. I personally did this through most of 2009 by driving to the east side of Grand Rapids from Holland until we formed a local group late in 2009.
What is a Tea Party? The fake political party created by Democrats last year to confuse voters was ruled ineligible to be on the ballot by the elections board. With this in mind, rules were adopted by collective ALL VOLUNTEER members of MI4CS. This was to inhibit individuals or groups who might infiltrate the process for their own agenda. I do not know the details regarding your situation.
While your comment includes references to “tea party values” and you cite a resume that includes activist training, it is unclear what your motivation is. You obviously do not want to be part of this process which is your choice. Perhaps you should form your own group, even create your own blog to share with others of similar opinions. If you do not want to go to the trouble of developing a blog, perhaps you could find those which would welcome your views.
Comment deleted by administrator
Looks like Konetchy just did the same thing Ron Paul did to Trump, and gave MI4CS the middle finger. Let’s hope other’s follow his lead.