Editor’s note: I read this with interest in The Union: all the media and local candidates jumping on the bandwagon to participate in a tea party-sponsored candidate forum.
In fact, the local tea party leaders are vocally endorsing some of the candidates. They have donated money, are listed in the endorsements and signed judicial recall petitions – hardly nonpartisan. It costs $5 to go, though for a good cause. (What about the fee to rent the Vet Hall?) But the League of Women Voters is offering its own forums for free.
From TheUnion.com:
The Nevada County Tea Party will sponsor a nonpartisan candidate forum 6 to 9 p.m. April 25 at the Grass Valley Memorial Veterans Hall.
The event features a full menu of political candidates for county, state and national offices.
The Union, KNCO, KVMR and Yubanet.com will have representatives to moderate the forum.
The public may submit questions to those media outlets.
Tickets for the event are $5 at the door with proceeds being donated to veterans organizations.
Candidates that have agreed to appear include Nate Beason, Sue McGuire, Ed Scofield, Richard Anderson, Tom Anderson George Smyrnos, Rick Bosetti, Brian Dahle, David Edwards, Charley Hooper, Sam Aanestad, Gregory Cheadle, Michael Dacquisto, Doug LaMalfa, Jim Reed and Pete Stiglich.
From The League of Women Voters:
The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan political organization encouraging informed and active participation in government. It influences public policy through education and advocacy.
NEVADA COUNTY CANDIDATES’ FORUMS – JUNE 5, 2012 PRIMARY ELECTION
Forums will be presented at the
Nevada County Board of Supervisors Chambers
950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City
Thursday, April 19 – 7pm to 9pm: State Assembly District 1
Monday, April 30 – 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm: Board of Supervisors, Districts 1 and 5
8:10 pm to 9 pm: Superior Court Judge, Seat 1
Tuesday, May 8 – 7 pm to 9 pm: United States House of Representatives, District 1
Filed under: Uncategorized
Dear Mr. Pelline,
Thank you for noting the article in The Union about the Candidate Forum we are hosting on April 25th. There were some observations however which were not quite correct. The Nevada County Tea Party does not endorse or financially support candidates in any way. Having said that, being a Tea Party member does not disenfranchise any member , who, as an individual, wishes to endorse or support a candidate of their choice.
Local media, representatives from The Union, KMVR, KNCO and YubaNet.Com will moderate the meeting. The $5.00 admission will cover the cost of the Veteran’s Hall and the balance will be donated to veteran’s organizations. As a public service, Tea Party members have been printing and placing flyers, contacting all candidates in our district and will be setting up and tearing down the venue on the night of the meeting. We hope this evening will be an opportunity for all candidates who join the event to make contact with voters and will give each of us an opportunity to be informed on each of the candidate’s views.
Nancy,
That’s funny. We (the community) have been down this path before with the local tea party.
Let’s disclose the facts: You, as the PRESIDENT of the local tea party chapter, let yourself be listed as endorsing Sue McGuire on her website. And you donated money to her campaign. You also signed your name to a petition to begin the recall process for Judge Julie McManus (one of only 34 who did). Local judge Tom Anderson is opposed to that initiative.
References:
http://www.SueforSupervisor.com
http://yubanet.com/regional/Notice-of-Intent-to-Recall-a-Retiring-Judge-in-Nevada-County.php#.T4woPBzDYeW
You, as the PRESIDENT of the local tea party chapter, are HIGHLY ACTIVE in local politics — not at all “nonpartisan.”
Please don’t insult our intelligence by misleading us.
•You owe the attendees, as well as the media who are participating, full disclosure as to these endorsements during this candidate’s forum.
•You also owe the attendees an explanation as to who’s going to choose the questions that will be presented.
It is a conflict of interest for you to be hosting a “candidate forum” when you are ACTIVELY endorsing some of the candidates AS AN OFFICER.
Your forum is a tea party rally, masquerading as a “candidate forum.” And the media should be ashamed for participating.
Fortunately, there are other alternatives for hearing from the candidates in our community.
Mr.Pelline,
Well, I guess I have to try one more time. If you do not get it, then there is no more to say. The Tea Party does not endorse (or donate to) any candidate. However, as an American citizen, I have every right to support whoever and however I want. The fact that a local newspaper chose to show my Tea Party affiliation when it mentioned no affiliation for anyone else is a mystery to me. If you really understood what the Tea Party was about, you would understand we support the principles of our Mission Statement. While politicians come and go, principles last forever. Frankly, it does not matter where, on the political spectrum our members may be, it is our principles that have meaning.
Again, please note my comments in my first post. We are trying to make this event possible as a community service. The moderators have total control over the questions that will be asked. Your suspicions are totally without foundation and lead to the type of polarization that is becoming so dangerous in our country. If we wanted this to be a Tea Party Rally then why would we not have been selective with the candidates we invited and given just them a platform?? I will not attack your motives for your comments and I hope, likewise, you will not attack mine.
Nancy Garcia
Nancy,
Although I appreciate your interest in our government and being an active participant in it I believe it is a much better idea for The League of Women Voters to handle such events for free without the implication of being partisan. Since 100% of the Tea Party caucus in congress is republican, this generally means to those of us that don’t subscribe to the TP ideology it as an arm of the Republican Party. Just the fact the NCTPP has anything to do with the event means it is already polarized. I agree with the outrage of the TP but have very different ideas on how our local/ state/ national issues should be solved.
Here is one example of that difference. I believe that the American people should be represented and we should raise income taxes (revenue) on those who bring in the highest 1% of income in our nation (Buffet Rule), latest poll came in at 72% of Americans want the wealthy to pay more since they made 93% of economic gains from 2009 to 2010 over 80% since 1980’s when they saw their income rates drop from 74% to 28%. Here is the article where you can find a link to the report that found this 93% number. If you want the source for the other numbers let me know.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/06-5
“According to a new report, nearly 93% of the economic gains made from 2009 to 2010 went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. “Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery,”
Nancy,
The Nevada County Tea Party Patriots are political activists. Their actions in our community speak more loudly than your words. You are the group’s leader. As a president/officer of the organization, will you disclose your own activism to the attendees? Will you disclose your contributions and endorsement of Sue McGuire? Will you disclose that you are one of only 34 people who signed a petition to begin the recall process for Judge McManus. Will you ask the group’s members to wear red shirts to the “candidate’s forum,” not a very nonpartisan practice. I respect your group’s right to be activists — although I often find the tactics disruptive — but you can’t have it both ways. The local media should not be playing along, either. It’s a grown up version of charades. Just so we’re clear, I would not be comfortable with a candidates forum hosted by the local contingent of “Occupy Wall Street,” who could make the very same argument you are trying to make. Would you support the OWS candidates forum?
Oranizing a forum and completely divesting yourself of the power to influence the content and questions seems pretty non-partisan to me. The structure is similar to debates on the presidential level – the media conducts the debate and the location is provided by a university or other entity.
I would wholeheartedly support an OWS candidates’ forum under the same conditions as the NCTPP runs their forum. OWS will provide the location and give any proceeds (after costs) to our veterans. Local media conducts the forum without any input from OWS whatsoever. It is fair that way.
We should be promoting more speech; it is how the system works. Be it OWS, NCTPP, or the LWV (locally every board member is a democrat by the way), these groups that provide a forum for us to properly vet our candidates should be applauded, not criticized.
Nancy, keep up the good work.
Barry,
My suspicion is that you say you would “wholeheartedly support” an OWS candidates’ forum to justify the NCTPP forum and counter the concerns being raised here. But if there really was an OWS candidate’s forum you would be one of the first to object. Let’s leave the candidate forums to the nonpartisan groups, not the political activists. And let’s promote more speech and vet the concerns surrounding the NCTPP forum, as we are doing here.
Barry,
Do you not see the NCTPP brand as divisive in our county?
I will tell you I have many friends that originally jumped on board with the NCTPP but no longer support the groups efforts but still share the core mission statement. Here is the funny thing about all of it, those same friends and I agree on 70% plus of issues but are told we are polar opposites. This is done through labeling everyone extreme environmentalists or communists that don’t subscribe to the very rigid ideology of NCTPP. It works from the other way as well and that is why I do not join environmental groups for the most part. There is a balance somewhere in all of this but profit and funding of political parties seems to trump everything and promoting conservation doesn’t pay real well. On the other hand the oil industry has made over a trillion $1,000,000,000,000 in profits over the last decade. Which one has more representation in our government today based on our government is open to the highest bidder?
Yikes!
Where to begin with this one? How about this…
The Tea Party has disparaged and disgracefully attacked the President in countless ways. So, when someone like Nancy Garcia says they don’t endorse a candidate, what does it mean to constantly oppose one? It means you support the opponent, and in this case that means only someone who aligns with you (i.e., someone in the Tea Party). Explain how this is not a de facto endorsement?
Ben Emery points out the need to raise taxes on the rich. The Tea Party has literally forced almost every Republican candidate into taking a pledge for no new taxes. Despite the fact that we’ve been at war (thanks to a Republican president) for over 10 years, the Tea Party seems to think these wars shouldn’t require payment from those who benefit the most from them. After WW2, the highest tax rate under President Eisenhower was 90%. This was required to pay off the war debt (which was at a higher ratio of deficit-to-GDP than today’s ratio) and supported because it was the patriotic thing to do. Today, patriotism apparently no longer means helping pay your share to keep your country secure.
Here’s the Tea Party logic…
Wouldn’t raising taxes on the rich, even to match the rate paid by middle class workers, infringe upon the job creators? Yes, it probably would. But look where the ‘job creators’ (who have had significant tax breaks during the entire 10 year wartime period) have created the jobs. It is not in this country! The erosion of US jobs, especially those in manufacturing, is self-evident. The investments have been primarily in China and India. How patriotic is that? Why should I or anyone else who sees these facts want to support a faction that not only wants to perpetrate this facade, but expand it even more?
Sorry, but the Tea Party is not just about principles. If it was, you could certainly make the same case for socialism or communism.
And lets not forget this little gem
http://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2011/08/04/did-political-cartoon-in-cabpro-newsletter-cross-the-line/
Or that fact that two of the most identifiable TEA PARTY supporters in the community George Rebane and Russ Steele have regularly used racist and bigoted slang, or dog whistle references on their web sites.
Or the fact that the TPP used a public parade to refer to the President of the United States engaging in a sexual act (in front of children and everything).
Credibility ZERO!
I am wondering what happened to the CABPRO NEWS newsletter? Is it still being published?
The other thing….you just cannot remain silent about nonsense like these demonstrations of ignorance and racism on a national level–you cannot welcome these ideas into your midst without intervening to moderate the behavior of the most radical–and remain credible on a local level. It is simply impossible.
I wonder if you can tell me why a young write in candidate Jedediah Biagi is not included in this forum?
I reside in Alta Sierra/District 2 and was disappointed that he was denied participation in this NCTPP and LWV’s forums.