UPDATED: 13 SC TEA PARTY LEADERS BLAST BACHMANN TACTICS – PATCH

sfluxe.com ^ | 12/17/2011 | sfluxe

[TBBT]

Check out this interesting story: Updated: 13 SC Tea Party Leaders Blast Bachmann Tactics – Patch Nearly a month after a SC spokesman for Rep. Michele Bachmann accused Newt Gingrich of trying to buy off the state’s Tea Party leaders by bringing them on as staffers, more than a dozen of the movement’s leaders are fighting back.

In a strongly worded letter issued Friday afternoon, 13 leaders of the SC Tea Party movement accused her of “attacking the tea party movement by accusing tea party supporters of Newt Gingrich of being bought off” and said she has escalated the battle by making it national news by discussing it with John King on CNN Wednesday night.

“Now that Michele Bachmann herself has decided to throw fuel on the fire, and this issue has become national news, we as leaders within the South Carolina tea party movement feel we must speak out to defend our integrity,” reads the letter, which was circulated on Twitter and on at least one Tea Party website.

They accuse Bachmann of trying to divide the Tea Party movement, and defended Gingrich, who has said time and again that the only real opponent is President Barack Obama

[TBP]

You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/195427-lawmakers-not-flocking-to-gingrich?page=9

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/04/us/gingrich-moves-to-turn-back-any-challenge-to-leadership.html

In the summer of 1997 several House Republicans attempted to replace him as Speaker, claiming Gingrich’s public image was a liability. The attempted “coup” began July 9 with a meeting of Republican conference chairman John Boehner of Ohio and Republican leadership chairman Bill Paxon of New York. According to their plan, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Boehner and Paxon were to present Gingrich with an ultimatum: resign, or be voted out.

[Nextrush]

Too many “Tea Party leaders” are just business as usual political types in drag doing the work of the GOP insiders.

[PieterCasparzen]

Our political system is one which is designed to prevent radical political changes. So we can only progress through marginal changes because the People have to be convinced to go along with the change.

IMHO, rather that it can survive radical political change (let's abbrev. RPC). I'm differentiating between the political system as a whole as opposed to specific political issues that arise from time to time. It was certainly founded on RPC - quite a startling fact, it was literally an armed revolution. It experienced the Civil War; that was RPC on a couple issues that would appear at first glance to put the political system at risk. But both North and South retained representative governments which then reverted to one at war's end. There have been riots and violent demonstrations many times - RPC. There have been pronounced reversals of postion on politically-charged issues from all branches of the the government as well as in elections in numerous watershed events in American history. So, IMHO, our political system accomodates even the most radical changes, but the system itself survives. That being said, we now see it's flaws, in that by design it could not prevent the nation from being overrun by secular humanism, which then eventually winds up working to subvert the Constitution itself. Of course, man is not perfect, so he can not design a perfect government.

It was not designed under the idea that there would be political parties or machines or have universal suffrage or a media which is actively anti-American and anti-decency.

I concur 100%.

There will be no fundamental change until the ideas of the People as a whole are changed.

I agree, in that secular humanism has been institutionalized, i.e, become accepted and promoted by the established political, education, media, legal, healthcare and religious institutions. However, as the population does see the error of the thinking that has been foisted upon them and they have naively accepted, and they start to desire a shift back to truth, then, along with pressuring all the other instutitions to correct their course, they certainly should politically exert the influence of their improved thinking. Many in America have changed their ideas in the past 3 years (an example of the genius of allowing the population to elect the wrong man) and this represents an opportunity to reflect the change in the composition of representative bodies.

That may well be impossible since Democrats have most of it convinced it can get something for nothing.

You've hit on the key, IMHO, stressing the importance of grassroots changing of hearts and minds. If our elected politicians have all the right ideas but the vast majority of citizens is absolutely wrong and misguided, the elected politicians can not overcome the deficiency of the populus. Those who have not lost - or have regained - good and truthful thinking certainly should do all they can to lead or perhaps just influence others in a positive way.

Enormous hat tip to Jim Robinson on active grassroots efforts, as well as wisdom in navigating issues as they arise while staying a charted course of purpose.

[Lancey Howard]

I agree 100% with what you posted. Her attacks on Cain, who at least had the guts to come up with a revolutionary and viable plan, the “999” plan, made me grimace. But Michele’s biggest prblem is her Fran Drescher laugh - - Americans do not want to hear that laugh for four (or eight!) years.

[Liberal Bob]

" One day I'm notified that I'm the new district captain "

So who did the notifying and how do you get the Notifiers job?

[Lancey Howard]

...while staying a charted course of purpose.

Jim has been consistent and unwavering in his conservatism and love of country for at least the 15 years of Free Republic. I've been here for 13 of them and it's the same Jim Robinson now as it was in 1998, believe me.

[Lancey Howard]

So who did the notifying and how do you get the Notifiers job?

First you have to pay the facilitator.

[PieterCasparzen]

It’s all the darts and arrows. Tough business, have to keep your eye on the ball. Masterful job.

[RobbyS]

Bachman is desperate. Her attack on Gingrich rather than Romney, who is certainly more liberal than Gingrich, means she feels her campaign is about to end. Maybe she hopes for VP.

[RobbyS]

I think that now Bachman is working only for Bachman.

[RobbyS]

Yes.What is she FOR? She hardly ever proposes anything, just opposes.

[Gaffer]

Ditto that! To me anyone claiming to be a Tea Party “leader”, isn’t.

[meadsjn]

What Michele said about Newt regarding Fannie and Freddie is sadly true.

No, Michele knows it was false, and here is proof that she knows it was false.

Newt Gingrich at a September 3, 2008 event with Michele Bachmann entitled Governing and Political Change, explains his position on Fannie and Freddie. He also details that he did consulting work for them, and that those who profited from the institutions should have to pay.
Michele Bachmann is standing next to him, and she knows here recent accusations against Gingrich about Fannie/Freddie are false.

[RealImmigrant]

I trust Bachmann before I trust Gingrich

[uncbob]

And the MSM love her for her attacks

She is pathetic

[EricT.]

And you are concerned about the GOP nomination for exactly what reason, if you have no dog in the fight?

I'm concerned because I'm a conservative who sees his country slinking further to the left every day. I am concerned because people who claim to be conservative seem to be willing to throw away their principals at the drop of a hat. I am concerned because the very few conservative politicians left in the Republican Party are vilified by people who pretend to be conservatives.

[Publius]

The Executive Committee invited me to attend a meeting, which I thought might be related to my work on converting their membership info from paper and Excel into Access. Then they told me they wanted me to lead one of our two chapters. I didn't expect that.

As a member of the Executive Committee, that makes me one of the possible notifiers for future reference.

[cripplecreek]

There is definitely something odd going on. Look at all the original tea party supporters who are now being treated as enemies. Hell, even Mitt Romney managed to speak at a tea party event a while back. Next thing you know, John Boehner will be the standard bearer of the tea party.

[rintense]

Yep. Heads in the sand, so many...

[Liberal Bob]

"As a member of the Executive Committee, that makes me one of the possible notifiers for future reference."

So the Executive Committee is an assembly of notifiers, or qualified to be notifiers and would make up these 13 tea party leaders in the article. And the Executive Committee would have the authority to speak for the rank and file of the nonvoting membership.

This is where our local tea party has dropped the ball, we don't even have a membership list, we only have an understanding of the constitution that holds us together. Our endorsements are done at the ballet box on election day.

God bless you Publius and have a great Christmas!