The meaning of Non-Partisan
We catch a lot of flack when we make statements or blog posts that are supportive or praise a Republican, or are negative about a Democrat. Those people are invariably leftys and nearly always use coarse language in their attempt to make a point.
I want to make it clear to everyone what non-partisan means to me and to the Cincinnati Tea Party. Our loyalty is to our principles and not to a D or an R after somebody’s name. What it doesn’t mean is that we don’t stand for something or that we want to be in the squishy middle. I am unashamed to call myself a conservative and I can and will articulate my conservative American values.
I will praise politicians that act according to my values and I will criticize those that don’t. It’s really that simple. I’ll give you a few examples.
We invited Dusty Rhodes to speak at our first rally in March. At the time, I was told that wasn’t good enough to prove that we’re non-partisan because he wasn’t a real Democrat. Exactly! He is a fiscal conservative and I support him for that reason. I see huge gaping differences between Mark Mallory and Dusty Rhodes even though they share the same party. Mark Mallory gets my criticism and Dusty Rhodes gets my support.
In Monday’s Enquirer (I can’t find a link to it online), Hamilton County Commissioner David Pepper (D) is quoted saying, “People want us to make sure money is not being spent on things we don’t need,” in relation to Sheriff Simon Leis’ (R) desire to apply for homeland security money for a boat. I love it!
The bottom line is that non-partisan means that I don’t care who’s team you’re on if you’re working towards the same goals that I am. Most of our group are disaffected Republicans. There is a key word in that sentence (hint: it’s bolded). We remained conservative when the party chose to go in a different direction.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Is that why you voted for the libertarian or ron paul in the last election? Or were you worried “your vote won’t count”, at least
on the “disaffected” on the left voted for nader!
June 12th, 2009 at 5:37 am
The irony of your post is that the left does not realize your position scares big government Republicans as much as the statist Democrats. The fact that a large cross section of Americans regardless of party identity simply want government out of their lives is their biggest fear. The response is that conservative principles must be attacked (with sophomoric crudeness of course) simply because they resonate so strongly with so many people.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:21 am
so you still didn’t answer why I haven’t seen a single endorsement of a libertarian if u really are about princies not party there is nothing crude about the question
June 12th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
@anon – Our system is rigged for two parties. I voted McCain as the lesser of the two evils and now I’m working to make sure we have better candidates in 2010/2012.
@CincyCapell – I think you really need to look into the mirror. You haven’t responded to our posts with anything resembling an argument. Who’s the extremist when we make arguments and you resort to name calling? And as for Mussolini, it’s very easy to be right of him. He nationalized industries and suppressed freedom in his country. That is the very definition of left-wing.
@Scott – I don’t think they care. I think they see a threat in our group which is why they attack.
@UCstudent – We’re all doing this in our spare time. I don’t have time to write as much as I want, nor do I have time to execute on all the good ideas we have. As I said to Anon, I think our system is essentially rigged in favor of two parties. It is almost impossible for a big-L Libertarian to break through the gates even if I’d like them to. I’m sure we’ll do it at some point.
June 12th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Hi UC, (we meet again, as it were)
Specific to your question: You said you haven’t heard us endorse a Liberterian yet. But, have you heard us endorse a Republican yet? To my knowledge, we haven’t started endorsements. Yes, we let some Republicans speak at our first event, but we never once said we endorsed them.
Keep watching though. We do plan to make actual endorsements though I believe we will require that such candidates publicly agree to some statement regarding our values.
As we keep saying, it is about values. If we found a Liberterian who was a viable candidate who strongly upheld our three guiding values, I believe we would certainly endorse him or her.
Notice that I did say the candidate had to be viable. I believe, and I believe most on the CTP believe (but I could be wrong), that a vote for a candidate who cannot win is a wasted vote. Sorry for all those out there who like to “make a statement”.
Ideally, the best party candidate is selected in the primaries. Of course, we have all found that this doesn’t always work out well. “Statement” votes may be part of the problem at the primary as well as general election levels leading to the poor selection of candidates we’ve had on both sides.
I believe a practical voter makes the best choice they can from among the candidates that have a chance to win. To do otherwise, and expect it to make a difference, is pure fantasy.
If you have a better idea for allowing the best to rise to the top and to throw out all the current corrupt Ds and Rs, I’d LOVE to hear it.. sincerely.
Meanwhile, organizations like ours will do the best we can to begin influencing local politics and the selection of candidates that bubble up from there. I hope the same happens with all parties as I believe we all need better choices than we have had.
Regards
June 12th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
The reason Bob Barr and Ron Paul weren’t viable candidates is because individuals like tea ****** are voting for the best of two evils instead of the candidate that best embodies their value system. I don’t see how you can rationalize that you are people of principle but don’t _vote_ for those principles the only actual meaningful way of expressing your political beliefs, short of being a candidate. The republican party hasn’t been anywhere near your definition of “limited government” and “free markets”, about as far from it as the democrats.
Ok – now the warning to you too. I’m not tolerating the slur on my own blog.
-Mike
June 12th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Okay tea partyers??? I really wasn’t being hostile at all. Do you normally get this defensive when an anonymous blogger makes a logical appeal on your website??
June 12th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
No, actually I don’t. I appreciate the way you’re being engaging, but I really dislike the slur. You and I both know the meaning of the term and the left uses it with great relish to describe a movement of good and decent Americans. Typically, it’s used in place of any attempt at rational argument. That clearly isn’t the case with you and I don’t think you meant to offend.
Commenters are welcome to call me stupid, uninformed, extremist, or just plain evil if that’s what they think. Coarse language is out of bounds.
If you look back to the first comment, I didn’t object to CincyCapell calling me a nutjob. He’s wrong, but I don’t care if he says it. Frankly, I think he makes himself sound stupid when he starts on his rants trying to “expose” us. Next thing we know, he’ll point out that I don’t actually live in Cincinnati and it’s really Springfield Township.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Mike, I appreciate your keeping the civility level standard on your comments section. It amazes me how many adults feel the need to use insults and profanity to argue their political points. It is usually is caused by the person’s inner frustration in knowing how weak their actual position is.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:50 am
Haha, wait, not a one of you addressed my point, and in fact Scott, mike said, “I appreciate the way you’re being engaging…I don’t think you meant to offend”. So, Scott, maybe you should recant _your_ insults, and actually reference my “weak” position.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Grassroots should be about making a local impact, I can somehwat excuse Mike’s position about Barr and Paul not being viable enough candidates to earn his vote (thought I think this is a problematic way of thinking about elections). It seems to me that CTP should be designed to help you all augment your impact in the political process. Shouldn’t CTP be able to get enough momentum going to elect a libertarian (i’m talking ideology not party affiliation) candidate at least on the local level?? I’m sure Obama gets your blood boiling but, why not transition this thing into actually affecting the political process instead of chucking tea bags. I think thats why you guys get so much flak, we know you all are upset, how about taking some action, meaningful action, protests got you publicity, now what?
June 15th, 2009 at 4:23 am
@UC – don’t have enough time to respond at the moment, but I will soon. I’ll probably turn it into a full blog post.
@CincyCapell – I warned you, you didn’t listen, and now you’re banned.