Monday, November 15, 2010

Erika Franzi, Tim Peck Resign From Asheville Tea Party

ANNOUNCEMENT

Dear Asheville Tea Party Members,

It is with great reluctance to announce that Founder, Erika Franzi, and Board member, Tim Peck have resigned from Asheville Tea Party and Asheville Tea PAC. It has been Erika's vision, leadership and unwavering belief in our mission that propelled the Asheville Tea Party and the Asheville Tea PAC to its successes, presence and influence.

It is hard to measure the countless hours and tireless effort that Tim Peck has devoted to both organizations. There are few who are as philosophically astute and grounded in our founding documents as Tim. He was always a guidepost.

They both have left a legacy that will guide the Asheville Tea Party and the Asheville Tea PAC going forward.

That legacy of accomplishments includes:
  • building two organizations, the Asheville Tea Party and the  Asheville Tea PAC
  • redesigning the organization to a project oriented structure
  • rallying for our rights
  • e-mailing and phoning campaigns to our representatives
  • meeting with Congressman Heath Schuler and Senator Kay Hagan to voice our concerns over the Health Care Bill
  • unveiling journalistic conflicts of interest in the press
  • educating us about our Founding Documents by organizing forums and speeches
  • attending the National Tea Party Conference and giving presentations
  • implementing a successful pre-primary debate for the District 11 Congressional candidates
  • supporting Congressional candidate Dr. Dan Eichenbaum in the 2010 Primary to within single digits of victory
  • endorsing, campaigning, and successfully getting four of ATPACs endorsed candidates elected in November, 2010
  • educating the public and our subscribers to the Independence Caucus candidate assessment process in a forum with IC founder, Frank Anderson
  • influencing Asheville City Council to put on hold their annexation plans of Royal Pines for twelve months
  • revealing the excessive expenses the Airport Authority was spending to send people to an airport conference in Maui
  • sending bus loads to DC to gather with more than 1.2 million other patriots on the Mall
  • gathering patriots for the first successful "We Read The Constitution" Day
We will do our best to continue the fine work Erika and Tim have begun and to bring this country back to the place our Founders would be proud.  We wish them good health and success in their next endeavors.

###

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Marriage Amendment

Comments made on the Matt Mittan radio show
November 9, 2010, at 4:50pm
Podcast, begins at 00:34:00


I won't be surprised at all if religious right Republicans squander their dominance in the General Assembly by making a priority out of social or moral issues -- which are really religious issues.

This is a case of Christian theocrats attempting to codify their own religious beliefs in the law that should be secular.

For some reason, Christians seem uniquely unable to practice their religion between their ears.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I would like to know how any same sex marriage breaks your leg or picks your pocket. I could marry my ashtray and it wouldn't cause any harm to anyone else. And it certainly wouldn't prevent you from practicing your religion.

Secondly, this amendment is couched in terms of representing the will of the people. As though people have the right to vote to violate other people's rights. Democracy is mob rule. We live in a country where the government is supposed to protect us from democracy. If a majority voted to ban Christianity, should we respect the will of the people?

RELATED

GOP: Dance With The One Who Brung You
By Paul Hsieh | November 3, 2010
Similarly, the recurrent theme in the countless grassroots Tea Party rallies across the country has been for fiscal responsibility and limited government — not social conservative issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

Shuler vs Pelosi

Former Speaker Pelosi will run for House Minority Leader in the 112th Congress. NC District 11 Representative Heath Shuler will challenge her for the number one party leadership position.

Scenario One has Obama as President, Boehner as Speaker, Pelosi as Minority Leader, Democrat-controlled Senate. The result might be so-called "gridlock." But gridlock has never deterred the advance of statism.

Scenario Two has Obama as President, Boehner as Speaker, Shuler as Minority Leader, Democrat-controlled Senate. The result might be bipartisanship. Bipartisanship has never fueled the advance of liberty.

Bipartisanship might mean that more statist public policy gets through Congress and signed by the President. Gridlock might mean less statist public policy gets through Congress and signed by the President.

In the absence of a major tea party influence, gridlock would be preferable from a liberty point of view. In which case, it would be preferably if Pelosi retained Democrat Party leadership. Also, Republicans would relish an ongoing partisan contest from a power politics point of view.

In the presence of a major tea party influence, gridlock could prevent the repeal or reduction of statist public policy. Genuine tea party principles should reduce to the promotion of individual rights, limited government and free markets.

The question is whether or not there is sufficient tea party influence in Congress to make bipartisanship appealing to the liberty agenda. The acceptance and adoption of tea party values in seats of power would be a function of 1) the tea party's understanding and embrace of a consistent libertarian political philosophy and, 2) the ability of the tea party movement at large to exert influence in the culture and in political leaders.

There is a new Tea Party Caucus in the House, Allen West will join the CBC. Rubio and Paul are now Senators. The Democrats and partisan media are flummoxed. Constitution talk is ubiquitous. Liberty candidates will be encourage in the next round of elections. And there are other signs that a greater liberty influence is being felt in politics.

I feel that another positive development for the liberty movement would be the election of conservative Blue Dog Heath Shuler to the number one Democrat Party leadership position, over against Pelosi. If the larger liberty community could get behind Shuler in his bid for leadership for strategic reasons, his election could prove fatal to the progress of statism and lead the country into a more serious conversation about direction.

Politics follows culture. The success of any liberty agenda will not result from a single election or the passage or repeal of legislation. It must burst forth from the culture prior to a sustainable element in politics.

The recent mid-term elections have been rightly portrayed as a repudiation of the hard left Obama-Pelosi progressive agenda. The election of Shuler as party leader would further solidify this sentiment in the public consciousness.

It is for these reasons that I support the election of Heath Shuler as Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 112th Congress.



RELATED

Black Caucus mum on Tea Party Republican who wants to join
By Mike Lillis | The Hill | November 8, 2010
Rep.-elect Allen West (R-Fla.) indicated last week he intends to join the CBC to challenge the group's "monolithic voice."

Defeated Democrats Pen Letter to Implore Pelosi to step aside
by Chad Pergram | Fox News | November 08, 2010
"Madam Speaker, fairly or unfairly, Republicans made you the face of the resentment and disagreement in our races. While we commend your years of service to our party and your leadership through many tough times, we respectfully ask that you step aside as the top Democrat in the House."

Moderates Eye Retaliation Against Pelosi
By Steven T. Dennis | Roll Call Staff | Nov. 9, 2010
There also is frustration that no one credible has emerged to take on Pelosi; no one considers the threat by Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.) to run to be anything more than a token gesture by the Blue Dog.

Midterm Election Analysis [video]
Communist Party USA | November 5, 2010
Democrats suffered a serious setback in Congress, jeopardizing a labor and people's movement agenda.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Jeff Miller Interview

I thought you might enjoy this.

Jeff Miller is a conservative Republican candidate running for U.S. House of Representatives from North Carolina district 11 on a pro-life position. So I thought I'd call into a local radio interview and ask him a question (at minute 16:00).

Jeff Miller on "Take a Stand" with Matt Mittan
570 AM WWNC Radio
October 20, 2010
Podcast: http://is.gd/gdebU
Tim Peck question @ 00:16:00

Saturday, October 16, 2010

The Veracity of Jane Whilden


North Carolina Representative Jane Whilden (D116) has claimed, in her bid for re-election in 2010, that she is a long-time opponent of forcible annexation. However, we find that her words and her actions are at odds.

Below are statements from Rep. Whilden where she claims, on two different occasions on the campaign trail, to have been a co-sponsor of an annexation reform bill.

Jane Whilden on Annexation
CIBO Luncheon
October 14, 2010
CIBOdebate.MP3, 00:18:30
"I have voted three times against forced annexation. I have actually signed on as a co-sponsor for legislation and I am willing to do so again. The bills in the legislature this past session passed the House but were not taken up by the Senate. Which means they basically died, they go away, and so the legislation has to be re-introduced and pass both houses in order to become law."
Jane Whilden on Annexation
League of Women Voter Forum
October 12, 2010
Mountain Xpress Video, Part 4, 00:19:24
"I have co-sponsored and voted for a bill against forced annexation. It passed the House. It got to the Senate and it stalled, and I'm not really sure why, but it was not take up by the Senate."
Here is House Bill 524, Annexation - Omnibus Changes: http://is.gd/g4sux

Where is Whilden's name as a sponsor or co-sponsor?


Here's the vote where Whilden was the deciding 60th vote that sent Goforth's bill back to the Appropriations Committee, a committee on which Whilden sits, instead of letting it have an up or down vote: http://is.gd/g4swt

Bill Jacket for House Bill 524


The Bill Jacket is proof that Jane Whilden was neither a sponsor nor a co-sponsor of the bill.

Since the vote was 60-59, she was the deciding vote. Goforth, a handful of Democrats, and all the Republicans voted NOT to re-refer the bill. If Whilden voted for the motion to re-refer, then it is she herself who voted to kill and/or gut the bill; contrary to her claim above of not know how all of this happened.

Once it was sent back, it was significantly altered, including the "poison pill" provision that would require any area under threat of annexation by Asheville to obtain approx. 10,000 petition signatures in 10 days.

Original Bill: http://is.gd/g4syk
Final Bill: http://is.gd/g4szl

It is conceivable that Whilden would justify her vote to send the bill back to committee by claiming that she "just thought the bill needed some more work" or that she "just wanted to make sure it would pass."

This is nonsense. If she wanted changes, she could have amended the bill from the floor, but because she was not a prime sponsor, the amendment would have been hostile and likely failed.

Why would Whilden go against the bill sponsors? And why didn't she just amend the bill from the floor?

RELATED

Asheville City Council tables annexation policy
by Margaret Williams | Mountain Xpress | 10/12/2010
In a marathon meeting that started with a 3 p.m. work session and wound through several public hearings that didn’t wrap up till after 11 p.m., Asheville City Council members voted 5-2 to table annexation decisions for the next 12 months.

Public Comment (not given)
Tim Peck | October 12, 2010
The use of force is an ugly thing.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

LTE: Glenn Beck

Dear Editor, Asheville Tribune,

In its recent editorial critical of large-scale conservative protests in Washington, D.C., UNCA's sophomoric Blue Banner newspaper relays its received Progressive talking-points and proceeds to conflate Glenn Beck's well-attended religious tent revivals and the populist national Tea Party Movement in an attempt to discredit them both with a searing swipe. And yet fails for these very good reasons:

First, by descending into 'ad hominem' personal attacks, the Banner reveals the absence of a valid counter-argument within the points it thinks it is making. Inflammatory slurs like "lunatic" and "snakes" reveal little in the way of facts and logic, but a great deal about the pettiness of hostile ideological bias in local media. Let us just say it is unpersuasive.

Second, the Banner simply invents ill motives for both phenomena and directly resorts to a well-worn approach in political debate: smear your opponents with manufactured intrigue. By mischaracterizing the nature of Beck's event as "equating the rich white American's economic and spiritual struggle to the civil rights movement," the Banner creates a straw-man which it would then strike down with unfortunate and snippy rhetorical flourishes. Mixing in a little birther-mania for good measure.

To be sure, Glenn Beck is a maudlin, self-aggrandizing theocratic sentimentalist with more persona and poignant pauses than compelling analytical substance. But Beck certainly has both the legal right and the moral sanction to host a quasi-political rally at the Lincoln Memorial; even after the fashion of King in his heyday. It seems Beck is experiencing a bit of a brush with popularity these days. He appeals to a certain bent in the political marketplace. And from which I'm sure he'll profit. I don't begrudge him that. We need bread and circuses.

The Tea Party Movement, on the other hand, is an independent, decentralized, nonpartisan, grassroots political issues-oriented community that stands against the out-of-control growth of government power, scope, arrogance, recklessness and corruption and stands for restoring the supremacy of individual rights in American society; for re-establishing an objective rule of law under a constitutionally-limited and accountable government; for fiscal responsibility that does not privatize profits and socialize losses; and for the full realization of an economy that is free from government interference and political controls. This fact the Banner is loathe to acknowledge -- even after two years. Fonder are the caricatures.

The Blue Banner seems now to decry populist movements of democratic political dissent and zealous religious revivalism; which were all the rage in the 60's when Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., marched on the same grounds that tea partiers and the reverent do now.

Remember those bumper stickers from the 60's? "Power to the People." "Dissent is Patriotic." A new breed is preaching those values. Disaffected America today is peeling back those bumper stickers from the hand-painted minivans of yesterday and is now pressing them onto their Suburbans and pickup trucks with the same passion and for the same reason. Right On!

TIM PECK, ASHEVILLE

###

RELATED

Tea Party Movement is a Revival of the Middle Class
By Tony Blankley | September 29, 2010
Ortega famously argued that a materialistic mass population had no self-restraint, only takes from its civilization -- in contrast to the elites who still sacrificed for the greater good. Lasch's point -- and mine -- is that roles are now reversed. It is the elites who are the materialists and the tea party/middle-class American who is prepared to sacrifice for our grandchildren's freedom and prosperity.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Scrutiny Hooligans

I am currently banned from the Scrutiny Hooligans community weblog, created by now-council member Gordon Smith, on the pretext that I violated commenting rules. That ban, abruptly enacted without communication, has been in place for more than a year.

[All I get is a big blank white screen. Can't read anything unless I go somewhere else and log on with a different IP address.]

The following is an email thread started when I attempted to respond to comments that specifically mention my name by forwarding my responses to others who are not banned to afford me an opportunity to answer my critics.

It includes comments from some friends, council member Gordon Smith and the SH Administrator on my status at the website and my recent attempts to address and resolve this matter.

-TIM PECK


Replies to Certain Scrutiny Hooligans Commenters

From: Tim Peck
To: D.D.
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 12:03:05 PM
Subject: reply to john, matt

John Baughmann
September 16th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Yeah, Tim. He once said that co-ops are immoral because they didn’t make a profit. I’m still not sure what that means…


1. I have never commented on the morality of co-ops.

2. Your comment appears to be in support of a previous comment regarding a ban in place for supposedly violating a rule. However, the point of your comment is a complaint about a point of view; which is not the subject of any ban. It seems you are in support of a ban based on opinion and that would be inconsistent with the comment rules set forth by the administrator.

Matt Rawlings
September 15th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Dixiegirlz: Tim Peck doesn’t need to post here–Franzi is posting. Ever notice on other blogs how often Peck’s quotes are Franzi’s?


No, Matt, I've never noticed how often my quotes are actually Franzi's. Certainly you can point readers to many such examples to support your claim.

At any rate, I am unsure as to how the fact that Erika Franzi posts here would obviate my interest in commenting on topics or replying to others here as well. Any expanded explanation of your point would be appreciated.

How's that Coffee Party coming along?


From: Tim Peck
To: D.D.
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 11:54:47 AM
Subject: comment ban

Admin Hooligan
September 16th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Tim Peck violated our comments policy by engaging in a form of spamming known as comment flooding. Until he apologizes to the contributors and readers of Scrutiny Hooligans, he will continue to be banned.

And just how would someone go about apologizing for flooding comments on a comment board that I have been banned from commenting on?

Here's my apology:

"I'm sorry I broke out a series of questions into 8 separate comments so that readers could respond to each one individually."


From: F.B.
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 1:07:07 PM
Subject: scrutiny hooligans

Looks like they did not forgive you. The posts I made for you seem to have been removed.


From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 1:12:21 PM
Subject: Fw: scrutiny hooligans

There must be some mistake.


From: F.B.
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 2:01:25 PM
Subject: Scrutiny Hooligans

COMMENT POSTED:

D.D.
September 17th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

ADMIN: “Tim Peck violated our comments policy by engaging in a form of spamming known as comment flooding. Until he apologizes to the contributors and readers of Scrutiny Hooligans, he will continue to be banned.”

I saw Mr. Peck’s version of what transpired and his apology.

What’s he supposed to do, self-flaggelate with a cat-o-nine tails, in Pack Square till no more flesh is on his back?

Earlier this year there were discussions about other affiliates coming here to voice opinions (but there was hot comment about the level of literacy that was expected)….Mr. Peck always writes articulately and well, though he tends toward a different mindset.


From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 11:57:34 PM
Subject: Fw: scrutiny hooligans

Please forward to your weblog administrator and I'll add my comments from below.

Here's my apology:

"I'm sorry I broke out a series of questions into 8 separate comments so that readers could respond to each one individually."


From: D.D.
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 11:07:37 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: scrutiny hooligans

The lame-o excuse given by whoever admin dude is, is a cover.

The fact is they are not that comfortable with sharing a forum to opposing points of view. Mores the pity. There's been quite a bit of arm twisting to vote straight Democrat of late. They are not at all appreciative of new blood entering the fray. It appears to be a thinly veiled tool to sway voting.

That said...it's not like they have a tremendous amount of traffic on Scu-Hoo...there are days with no comments, what-so-ever.

D.D.


From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 2:51:02 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Can we now dispense with the idea that I was banned from Scrutiny Hooligans for violating a technical rule of the comments policy?


From: Erika Franzi
To: Tim Peck
Cc: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 5:43:18 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Who ever actually believed it? That is, outside of that cadre of pseudonymous commenters who mindlessly tap out ad hominem attacks against all those with an original thought, yet crow about their love of diversity of thought. Diversity of thought for these guys means having two thoughts in one day. And remembering both of them.

You know I like you a lot Gordon, but at the risk of further pissing you off, you really should take out the actual trash in the SH comment section, if there's to be one. Tim raises the level of discourse. The usual commenters simply make the comment section palatable to other progressives. It has been my observation that you are somewhat above that sort of partisan hackery and nonsense. I hope I haven't been wrong.

Awaiting my own banishment.

E


From: Tim Peck
To: Erika Franzi
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 6:21:37 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Exhibit 1:

Admin Hooligan
September 16th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
"Tim Peck violated our comments policy by engaging in a form of spamming known as comment flooding. Until he apologizes to the contributors and readers of Scrutiny Hooligans, he will continue to be banned. But, because John Galt said that he owes nothing to his brothers, I’m guessing that we’ll never see his smiling Gravatar again. It’s ironic, really, that a blogger who disallows commenting on his own blog would act like such a grade-A spammer jerk on ours."



From: Gordon Smith
To: Erika Franzi
Cc: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 7:14:00 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Hi, everybody.

I've forwarded the conversation on to Admin. Admin is sovereign.

As to the "trash" - You don't have to visit if it's offputting. Based on your opinion of the ScruHoo commenters you must find it very offputting. Alternately, you could have conversations at other blogs. It is a big internet after all. Some people even begin their own blogs and foster their own commenting community. Lots of choices, y'all! As to "banishment", it's pretty easy to read the comments policy. Tim is one of only two or three people in six years of blogging that have had their privilege suspended.

I think we've done an excellent job creating a smart, funny, and sometimes absurd commenting culture at ScruHoo.

Lastly, I never expect to pass the ideological or philosophical purity tests given by many different types of True Believers.

We'll wait to hear from Admin,

Gordon


From: Erika Franzi
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 7:20:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: scrutiny hooligans

Let it go.

He is the artful dodger. Didn't answer a single issue and he never will. What he did is suggest that we are overly sensitive to their comments and should go elsewhere.

He's insulting and not particularly bright. I am quite disappointed.

I'm done here.

E


From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 7:46:14 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Let me attempt to carefully interpret Erika's email for Asheville's freshman city council member Gordon Smith:

The Administrator for your declared community weblog is lying asshole.

Thanks for your concern in this matter. Let me know,sir, if you need any help in others that might come across your desk about which you are completely baffled.


From: Gordon Smith
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 8:23:49 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

You missed your calling, Tim. You ought've been a diplomat.

I'm sure you're not spending too much time thinking about your commenting status at ScruHoo what with the many efforts you're helping to spearhead with the Asheville Tea Party. I appreciate your candor and endless patience.

G


From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 8:26:50 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

It's not too much to get to the bottom of abject duplicity in local politics. In fact, it's a pleasure. The laughter alone is worth the effort.


From: Gordon Smith
To: timothypeck@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 10:46:21 PM
Subject: In response

Tim,

I received this from Admin today:

Mr. Peck,

Thank you for your continued interest in Scrutiny Hooligans. We will soon be implementing programming measures that will attempt to address and hopefully improve many of the issues that we've been having with the way our installation of WordPress handles comments. We're running tests right now, and we're estimating that we're three to five months away from a solution. Until then, we won't be making any decisions about the removal of any IP addresses from our blacklist.

Regards,
Management


From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 11:51:37 PM
Subject: Re: In response

Translation: "I'm a dick."

Thanks for your clarification. I'll be sure to pass this along to the others.

Regards,

My ass



RELATED

BlogDrama Open Thread
Scrutiny Hooligans weblog | October 7, 2010

Dixiegirlz: I still think the reasoning for barring Tim Peck is lame. He should be allowed back into the fold. Our country is better for opposing, yet polite points of view.

Matt: Are we REALLY still discussing the comments policy & TP? If you really feel the need to read his pointless and offensive comments-look at the abundance on other local blogs/news media sites. I have yet to see one of his posts add something new to a discussion or wasn’t simply repeating the words of his master, the local tea brewer. I find the lack of TP comments on this blog refreshing. Now, can we discuss solar panels and the White House?

Tim Peck: It might be helpful to Mr. Matt Rawlings (of now-defunct Coffee Party fame) to know that there is no commenting rule that allows for the barring of participants due to the disagreeable nature of the content of their comments; no matter how "refreshing" their absence might be to the simple-minded. Even the "pointless and offensive" (and undecipherable) comments offered by Mr. Rawlings are still allowed to stand at Scrutiny Hooligans.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Interview: American Independent

Asheville Tea Party remains neutral in Shuler-Miller race
Aaron Sarver | American Independent News Network | September 21, 2010

Now with more than 700 people subscribing to its e-mail newsletter, the Asheville Tea Party (ATP) has grown rapidly in the past few months as voters tune into the fall elections. Membership in the group is a non-formal affair, requiring no dues. And with the attention and influence tea party factions continue to wield, on both local and national levels, many established Republicans are trying to shore-up their local tea party’s endorsement.

Speaking about the group’s process for endorsing candidates, Tim Peck, co-founder of the ATP, says, “We need to remain non-partisan and be very clear on who we’re going to endorse and why, we’re not just going to fall in line. This is a clarifying moment for us as an organization. Through this process of looking very seriously at the substance of the candidates we’ve been able to differentiate between the people who really understand our mission and those who expected us to be something else.”

The Asheville Tea PAC, which the Asheville Tea Party uses to raise funds and run ads, has endorsed several local candidates for the General Assembly, all Republicans, including R.L. Clark for Senate District 49, Jim David for Senate District 50, Mark Crawford for House District 115, Tim Moffitt for House District 116 and Sam Edwards for House District 118. Yet, the ATP has not endorsed either candidate in the 11th District congressional race between incumbent Democrat Heath Shuler and Republican challenger Jeff Miller.

The group uses the Independence Caucus Survey, which consists of 80 yes-or-no questions focusing mainly on tax and fiscal policy, to determine endorsements. Audio from each endorsed candidate is available on the Independence Caucus website, which is used to clarify answers (and non-answers) to any questions. Peck says, “It’s not just yes-or-no questions. It’s more in-depth, why did you answer yes or no to these questions.”

Peck says both Democrats and Republicans are eligible to receive an endorsement so long as they take the survey and participate in an interview. Neither Shuler nor Miller has taken the survey, though the ATP has encouraged both candidates to do so in their print advertisements, which lists the group’s endorsed candidates. Peck says a lot of people in the ATP will vote for Miller. “We have a lot of internal wrangling over whether to endorse the Republican nominee.”

But Peck believes the group will stick to its strict endorsement criteria. And for those who expect the ATP to automatically get behind Miller, Peck said, “You ought to be able to find another political organization who will endorse a Republican regardless of their merit.”

Peck doesn’t think highly of Miller himself. “He’s a waffling big-government conservative. He’s already flip-flopped on Social Security. He’s not able to defend his position on Social Security so he flip-flops on it.”

The ATP did endorse a candidate in the Republican primary, Dr. Dan Eichenbaum. Eichenbaum bested Miller by 48-27 percent in Buncombe County, which includes Asheville (the largest county and largest city in the 11th District). Miller won the primary 40-34 percent overall, with four other candidates on the ballot.

Peck, who is registered as “unaffiliated,” Buncombe County’s official term for independent, says the group is not just a bunch of disaffected Republicans, and that he will continue to go to great lengths to explain how tea party groups are misrepresented by the media. “Don’t confuse Glenn Beck and the tea party and Sarah Palin. Anytime Glenn Beck says something stupid, that paints the tea party in a bad light. … A lot of these groups don’t have anything in common.” Peck says the group’s views are frequently misunderstood on local blogs and forums as well, and he frequently points to the group’s mission statement to try and set others straight about the ATP’s views. It reads, in part:
The Asheville Tea Party is an independent, local, voluntary, nonpartisan, grassroots political activist organization that stands for individual rights, limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets; and was created by concerned citizens in response to the out-of-control growth of government power, scope, arrogance, recklessness and corruption.
Miller isn’t the only GOP candidate Peck is wary of endorsing. Of incumbent Republican Sen. Richard Burr — running for reelection against Democrat Elaine Marshall and Libertarian Michael Beitler — Peck has previously said of ATP’s views of Burr, “They’re just not interested in what Burr has to offer.” Peck didn’t consider his favored candidate Beitler a spoiler in Burr’s chances of reelection. “If Burr loses by 7 percent he needs to think about that,” Peck said. “He will lose because he’s wrong on the issues. I would consider Burr the spoiler.”

###

Thursday, August 12, 2010

LTE: Gay Marriage Bans

TO: ASHEVILLE TRIBUNE

Dear Editor,

Our Founding Fathers hated democracy. So do I. Democracy is rule by public whimsy. Whereas the Founders envisioned for our nation a rule of objective law, not of fickle men. Under this vision, the protection of rights trumps the wishes of a mob, any mob, no matter their fallacious appeals to authority.

Thankfully, U.S. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker agreed with the Founders and me in his decision overturning California's proposed Constitutional ban on gay marriage. With his decision, free adults retain the right to enter into voluntary contracts on their own terms unmolested by their neighbors. And this is how it should be--for all of us.

If a majority voted to ban Christianity, should we respect the will of the people? I pray not.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE


RELATED

Where Do People Like This Come From?
Neal Boortz | August 10, 2010
Another letter-writer says that "Elected officials have the duty to vote the line of the majority of their constituents. This is the basis of representation by population in the Constitution." Sorry ... wrong.

Gay Marriage
Tim Peck | July 24, 2007
Some are using religion to justify discrimination against gays while others use religion to justify acceptance of gays. Both are wrong.