The Demise of the Rowlett TEA Party
What would you call a political grass roots organization that tells you to NOT vote in a certain election? What would you think if the leader(s) of a local TEA Party stood against everything that this nation stands for, everything that this nation was founded upon and put out a line like this below? Bold emphasis mine.
We received no response from any of the candidates for this race, nonetheless, there is a sufficient amount of information about each of these candidates to evaluate. On the issue of fiscal responsibility, we have no reason to believe that Mr. Jackson or Mr. Miller will not be conservative in how they appropriate our tax dollars, but we are not convinced that any of the three candidates will govern with a limited government approach. Mr. Miller and Mr. Pankratz both have substantial experience in commercial development, and Mr. Jackson has the benefit of three years as a member of the Council. Based on the statements and/or actions of all three candidates, we believe all three candidates will bring an interventionist philosophy to the council. As such the Rowlett Tea Party recommends that no vote be cast for Place #3. When this race is narrowed to two candidates, perhaps then, they will choose to explain to us how we have misunderstood their positions and governing philosophy.
Those are not the words of a TEA Party leader, those are the words of a hard-core Libertarian anarchist, words that border on total lunacy, words intent on disrupting the voting process in Rowlett, TX.
Perhaps these are words intended to disrupt, much like the scatterbrained idea TEA Party leader Jerry Berggren had recently when he wanted to FLOOD this election with bogus TEA Party candidates. Real people but bogus candidates, set in place only to disrupt the election.
OUR MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Rowlett Texas TEA Party Patriots is to organize like-minded individuals, educate and inform others about our core values, secure public policy consistent with those values, and to positively affect the outcome of elections. SOURCE
If you don’t vote, how then do you narrow a field to two candidates and positively affect the outcome of elections? Do you, on the word of the TEA Party, sit back and allow the rest of the voters to make your run-off election picks for you? Is that the TEA Party’s new stance? Let others do the work and advance a then we’ll think about getting involved if we feel like it attitude?
Is sitting on your butt at home a new part of the CORE VALUES for the Rowlett TEA Party? I looked at their site, they don’t have any new CORE VALUES listed, in fact, the WELCOME PAGE on the TEA Party site is one that was written by me before I dis-involved myself with this Libertarian cluster-doodle.
The Rowlett TEA Party CORE VALUES:
*Uphold the U.S. Constitution*
*Free Markets* SOURCE
Limited Government — I am guessing that now means limiting the votes you make? Limiting the way elections are decided? Limiting WHAT exactly?
Obviously, at least in MY opinion, the Rowlett TEA Party, and it’s UN-NAMED leadership, has limited the Place 3 choices for anyone foolish enough to listen and adhere to the writings of it’s Libertarian, anarchist web-master.
Recently, Babs Millward, a Rowlett TEA Party official of in some capacity, sent out a questionnaire to the candidates running for City Council.
There were several questions involved. I am forced to assume that there was a total of SIX questions asked, but for some strange reason the questionnaire only has five questions showing. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Question 3 was strangely missing, but, to further my sources of citation, I have NOW seen that questionnaire from an additional source, #3 was missing from it too.
I DO have the questionnaire in my possession just in case anyone connected to a leadership position on the Rowlett TEA Party questions my writing and wants to try and call me a LIAR again!
One of the questions was:
6. If a topic arises on which the mayor and city council members are divided, how would you handle it so it doesn’t become a public issue?
Again, I am forced to presume in this. I have to assume that question is in direct response to the recent campaign to remove Rowlett Mayor John Harper from office, a campaign that the Rowlett TEA Party took no party in, pro or con. Some more of that *sit on your lazy butt* grass roots political activism I suppose…maybe the grass roots became ASS roots and they couldn’t get off of the sofa to attend or participate.
Mr. Ron Miller, Candidate for Place 3, made me privy to these questions, he received the list from Babs Millward, and actually answered the questions, but had them saved in draft and forgot to send them to the TEA Party.
In any case, this is Mr. Miller’s wonderful response to Babs Millward and the TEA Party regarding question number 6.
You’ve got to be kidding. Isn’t public discourse what this is all about? Don’t you think the public ought to know about differences of opinion of the city leaders? I have no inclination to make any disagreements secret.
“If a topic arises on which the mayor and city council members are divided, how would you handle it so it doesn’t become a public issue?”
Seriously? That’s the kind of questions the TEA Party wants answered? That’s, in THEIR opinion, a good question that relates to the topics at hand? How to keep something from going public?
The Rowlett TEA Party, and it’s so-called leadership, have truly lost their way, lost their moral compass, they have sunk themselves into the abyss if irrelevancy.
They want to suggest that people don’t vote in an election? Not a suggestion of no recommendation, oh no, a suggestion that people just don’t vote. Stupidity at it’s finest!
The TEA Party wants a candidate to answer a question about how to keep PUBLIC disagreements, in a Mayor-Council form of government, from becoming a PUBLIC ISSUE? Again, sheer stupidity.
I was under the impression that TEA Party politics were all about honesty, integrity and transparency.
In Rowlett Texas, apparently not.