Tea party (TP) organizations in South Carolina are divided over
which gubernatorial candidate to endorse next year. I offered a suggestion a few days ago, but my wisdom apparently – sorry, can’t resist - isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
It seems that the division among the organizations – endorse Lexington Representative Nikki Haley or State Senator Larry Grooms – isn’t based on principles or qualifications, but, instead, appears to be orchestrated by a particular candidate’s campaign and, possibly, a big consulting firm.
In September, I wrote that Grooms was the “Stepford Candidate” – a proxy for Richard Quinn and Associates, South Carolina’s premier political consulting firm, kingmaker and keeper of the status quo. The point in having a Quinn-fueled candidate of Grooms’ ilk would be to divide the genuinely conservative wing of the state GOP to make things easier for, most likely, Henry McMaster in polls and the primary next year.
At the center of the grass roots dust-up is Ron Parks, a Charleston TP organizer leading the charge to get all of the Palmetto State’s TP organizations to endorse fellow Low Countryman Larry Grooms. The regional loyalty is understandable and hardly unusual, but the tactics Parks is using are particularly unsavory and have a distinctive ring.
Parks, “a contractor who lost his job earlier this year and quickly found work as a volunteer with the Tea Party movement, [source] ” has been active in various TP activities across the state and in Washington. That’s commendable and represents the kind of activism that many don’t or can’t pursue. But there appears to be a dark – and certainly a questionable – aspect of Mr. Parks’ “volunteerism.”
Consider an oddly named YouTube video posted by Myrtle Beach conservative activist, blogger and Tea Partier “LukeAmerica” on 21 October. Ron Parks is in the video advertisement that labels Grooms “The Tea Party Guy.” Not “”The Charleston Tea Party Guy” or “The Low Country Tea Party Guy.”
Now… here’s the trick. The various South Carolina tea party organizations were originally scheduled to decide on a candidate to endorse on 24 October – three days after this video was posted.
In that 24 October meeting, according to sources in attendance, instead of just proposing the positive qualities of Larry Grooms, Parks went negative on Rep. Haley including questioning her religion. Not only is that a STUPID approach, it’s ignorant as well. Nikki Haley is a Methodist. I’ve known Methodists all my life and know them to be good people with strong values about right and wrong. It’s a pity that Ron Parks would denigrate someone for being a Methodist. Shameful!
Parks also criticized Haley for supporting the roll call bill, calling it “unconstitutional.” Now, wouldn’t you think that those of the “Tea Party Mind” would not only approve of, but INSIST on that kind of transparency? Why would Mr. Parks try to use that AGAINST a reform candidate? It was the General Assembly hierarchy that came down on Haley for her proposal, just as Parks is now trying to do.
The decision to endorse wasn’t voted on until 7 November during which, as one participant described it “Larry Grooms was rammed down our throats.“
Of course, to accomplish this little coup, Parks and Co. needed help. They were able to manipulate the UpState TP folks into choosing Grooms for the endorsement. Coincidentally, on 14 November, the Boiling Springs Tea Party group is sponsoring a Veteran’s Day Victory Celebration. The first two names on the list of “Victory” speakers are Larry Grooms and Ron Parks.
I emailed the Charleston Tea Party organization asking for assistance in contacting Mr. Parks. That email went unanswered. At the same time, I emailed Maria Brady of the Boiling Springs TP group. I noted my concern for the Palmetto TP movement “is the contamination of a well-intentioned and much-needed grass roots conservative movement for the sake of political gain.”
Curiously enough, Ron Parks responded – not Maria Brady – in a very manifesto-tinged tirade. The first paragraph reads:
Sir, your concerns are duly noted, and your blog has been read. From the apparent absence of research in your speculations it is clear to me that discussion on this matter would be time wasted…which I have none to waste. Please find it sufficient that we have dealt with this and other speculations in our meetings and found Larry Grooms to be far and away the best tea party candidate, perhaps in the whole country. His conservative stance throughout his 12 years of service should speak volumes and make any conservative proud and confident in their support for him.
Hilariously, Mr. Parks also wrote:
We have much work to do. Young man, please burden us no more with your needless rambling or we will simply add you too our email block list. I assume you to be a young man due to the lack of effort noteably absent in your research, which is often and unfortunately a product of the younger generation who have not had to put much effort into anything. Furthermore, whomever supplied and informed you regarding this email list has serious ethical issues and is a great disappointment to this historic movement.
Had HE done HIS research, Mr. Parks would know I’m no “young man.” Plus I got the email addresses from the Internet – basic research. Curious, too that honest disagreement is met with shunning. Helluva democratic movement!
But back to the point, why didn’t Ms. Brady respond herself? Why did she defer to Ron Parks of Charleston instead of speaking for herself or Boiling Springs? That, alone, testifies that the Up State groups (or, at least, Boiling Springs) has deferred to Parks rather than speaking for themselves/herself/itself. Are the rest of the Boiling Springs Tea Party folks comfortable with this?
The full email thread can be read here.
Look – we ARE talking about the Tea Party movement that represents Americans rising against politicians who keep on keeping on despite the will of the people – right?
Is Parks heavy-handed involvement with the TP movement merely to maneuver the state-wide organizations into a pro-Larry Grooms political action committee? Or is his participation even more sinister?
Might Ron Parks be another part of the Stepford Conspiracy? Is it possible (the answer is “yes”) that it could be yet another Richard Quinn and Associates “coincidence?” Is there a mole in the reform movement, or, more accurately, a poison pill intent on splintering a group that is dangerous to those in power?
I love the Tea Party movement. Citizen involvement is what built this country and will rebuild it in the ruins of Obama and Pelosi.
It’s no secret that I believe Nikki Haley to be the best choice as South Carolina’s next governor, but I can accept honest disagreement and even an honorable crossing of swords. What concerns me is the apparent hijacking of a much-needed body of work by people with real worries about our country and South Carolina through cheap mud-slinging and high-handed machinations.
I don’t want to discourage the Tea Party movement. It can be strong and effective without centralization, particularly when there are people involved who take just a little too much pleasure in the power it gives them.
Party on!
Pingback: Stepford Candidate Revisited « The Garnet Spy
Question: Why do Tea Party people follow the lead of C Street Cult people like Demint?
Interesting to read this. At least one person I know of was purged from the Charleston group, accused of trying to manipulate the group for political gain.
I like how the “leader of the Tea Party movement in South Carolina (*cough* Charleston *cough*) insults an entire generation of constituents, who represent the future of this country AND his district when he said, “the younger generation who have not had to put much effort into anything.” Wow. Who DOESN’T want that guy endorsing you?
Garnet,
This is an excellent post for those of us who love getting into the political back-stories of South Carolina politics. I am new to your blog, but I will now add it to my daily reading list!
I have been to several tea parties but am not involved in any of the groups putting them on. Actually I didn’t even realize there are tea party groups organized enough to the point that they could actually meet to issue endorsements. Is it more than just the Charleston and Boiling Springs groups?
I’ve also watched as Larry Grooms has sought to tie himself to the tea party movement. I figured that was his own doing as a way to boost his nominal candidacy. If in fact there is a statewide network of tea party groups that issued an endorsement this past Saturday, I wonder if anyone is actually going to be reporting on this?
Mr. Garnet:
Excellent reporting, sir!
I can’t help but think this makes perfect sense. There are too many facts revealing themselves that look very bad for Grooms.
If this is the case, I wonder who will be paying Grooms back for the loans he’s made to his own campaign. Is he really trying to get outside donations? He may not need to.
This is scary stuff to consider. I hope it’s not true.
garnetspy@gmail.com
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO::
host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com
The email account that you tried to reach is disabled
How may I email you, sir?
Pingback: The Jackass Effect « The Garnet Spy
Pingback: Principles For Hire? « The Garnet Spy
Pingback: The Jenny Factor: Part 2 « The Garnet Spy
Unquestionably, I am a Nikki Haley supporter so my bias is up front and in the clear.
That said, the Parks commentary is low brow, out of line, petty and does both Parks and candidate Grooms a disservice. I would expect his style from the Left and perhaps from the Far Left.
[Above comment continued] Within our “Tea Party” community we should expect fair, honest and open conversation on any given topic. It would appear that opacity, rather than transparency, is among the ram-rodding techniques of Parks, et al. That approach is in extreme contrast to the openness and transparency advocated and urged by Nikki Haley. It is a firm indicator that Grooms backers, but hopefully not Grooms, are more interested in the old-style patronage system and “good ‘ol boyism” rather than clarity and free speech! I would expect candidate Grooms to make every effort to quash such activity.
GS, I see you’re enjoying retirement.
Actually, it looks like you’ve moved into a different line of work rather than retiring.
Thanks for this inside look. I think the Republican party is as entrenched in South Carolina as it is anywhere else, and whatever it takes to get an (R) in the Governor’s Mansion and State House is what will be done. If that means usurping the Tea Party movement for the sake of election wins, then so be it.
That’s pretty much why I have started to refer to myself as “conservative” rather than “Republican.” I have learned that just because someone appends an R to their name doesn’t mean they share my political views.
Interesting post. As a Democrat, this is out of my territory. From where I sit, all of these people look pretty conservative. I suppose it is like Eskimos having all those names for snow. Maybe the teabaggers need more names for “conservative.”
I’m not sure how effective religion is as a political filter. I know plenty of liberal and conservative Catholics, Episcopalians and Presbyterians. The most conservative of the people I know from those three groups should be right wing enough for anybody. The most liberal people, sometimes from the same church, could fit in well at an ACLU meeting.
Mr. Hamilton:
Do you discuss people of different races in such stereotypical terms?
If conservatism at its most extreme is strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution as written then I’m the most extreme conservative you’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.
Those of us who have a better understanding of the law expressed in the Constitution have a lot of trouble with the unconstitutional actions of some people in the Republican Party–much less the same sorts of ideas espoused by most members of the Democrat Party in which you so obsequiously wallow.
People who want ANY sort of national solution/dictates on such items as abortion, religion, gun rights, and other issues explicitly and strictly forbidden to the federal government by the states is equally wrong in principle no matter if the federal level solution is seen by you to be “conservative” or “liberal.”
For example, the establishment of a national church is unconstitutional.
By the same token, the forbidding by the federal government of states to establish state churches or religions is also unconstitutional.
Any time the Federal government steps between a citizen and his state’s government except in those very few authorized instances described in the Constitution, it is a violation of our rights to govern ourselves as in “consent of the governed.”
The fact is that the NORM for government since the beginnings of civilization has been despotism and tyranny wherever governments have been able to wield their power. The Constitution is one of the very few instances where the liberties of states and individuals were to be protected by the restrictions respecting natural law that were placed on the central governing body (and hopefully serving as a model for the states in many regards) .
The Constitution is the revolutionary document of our age and currently members of both parties are working to destroy it utterly and complete the transformation to a fascist, one party state. No thanks.
Freedom is not risk-free.
Pingback: Unsweet Tea « The Garnet Spy