. . . it's been awhile since we've heard from you around these parts. I appreciate having had the chance to discuss this with you at last Thursday's River City Patriots meeting, but I'd like to take this opportunity to put some of what we discussed on the record (as well as to clear up a few other things).
The Michigan Tea Party Patriot Network isn't a formal organization that I'm aware of. Rather, it's a plural noun (admittedly that I coined) that I frequently use to refer collectively to all of the tea party groups in Michigan. I mentioned in the article that Cindy Gamrat and I arrive at our numbers differently. I started out by combing various publicly available sites (Tea Party Patriots, Mackinac Center, and others), and whittled the list down from there by trimming off dead links and groups that told me that they don't self-identify as tea party. As I also mentioned, Cindy doesn't treat tea party groups separately unless they're operating independent of each other for the purposes of Michigan 4 Conservative Senate, whereas I'm not so quick to aggregate.
Yes, I'm well aware that Mark Petzold is one of the founding members of the TPWM, so are Tina Dupont and Larry Laham (as well as a fourth individual whose name escapes me at the moment). I'm really not sure why that detail is so important. I was in that Zeeland meeting two Januarys ago, when the Kent County Tea Party Civil War (yes, another term I've coined) came to a rather nasty head. I remember that major players on both sides of the fight were making a pretty good effort to drag me in . . . on their side. Doing my damnedest to stay neutral didn't do me any favors, because I wound up catching hell from both factions.
You and I clearly don't see the Dupont e-mail the same way. I see it as the TPWM making their non-participation in MI4CS a matter of public record, but being otherwise supportive of the effort. The numbers that I cited are those available on the Tea Party of West Michigan website, and I included the caveat that I know those numbers aren't accurate, but that's what's available at the source. Clearly, they're not the only tea party group in Michigan to stay out of MI4CS, as this comment elsewhere in the thread makes clear.
And here's the real question: Why does this matter? All this carping for and against MI4CS, why does it matter?
In all honesty, those opposed to MI4CS have a grand total of two legitimate arguments:
- This could have waited until March (because the MI-TPPN should have spent February focused on the presidential primary).
- The concern that the MI4CS endorsement will be spun as being representative of all of the Michigan tea parties . . . even the non-participants.
Don't discount that second point too quickly. The mainstream media thrives on conflict, to the point that they'll manufacture it if they have to. Unless that endorsement press release is carefully worded, the media will figure out how to morph it into highlighting internal divisiveness within the tea party. (And the egos on both sides of the argument that just won't let it go will make that an easy sell.)
On the flip side of this coin, those supporting the MI4CS effort also have a pair of valid arguments:
- This is a reasonably well thought through and soundly structured effort to avoid a repeat of the 2010 gubernatorial primary.
- Any of the candidates who wanted to participate had a fair shot at the endorsement.
Although, let's be clear here, the model (Hoosiers For Conservative Senate) was formed as a response to the 2010 senate election in Indiana, not to affect it, as the MI4CS information page makes clear. Evidently, the Indiana Tea Party Patriot Network had the same problem in their 2010 senate primary that we had in our 2010 gubernatorial primary . . . too many conservatives splitting the vote, resulting in a moderate getting the nod.
I've been paying attention to the several straw polls being conducted by the various MI4CS participants, so I'm not really surprised that Gary Glenn picked up the endorsement earlier today. Now the trick is going to be getting the guy qualified for ballot access.
Parent
