A Place for Women to Build a Stronger Center
Private
Training
and Classes
REGISTER NOW
Classes begin September 13th
VOTED BEST
OF WESTPORT
Painting Company
For all of your painting and wallpapering needs.
Call George now for a free estimate:
203-241-8922
Mention WestportNow and get 10% discount
Rex
Marine Center
Inflatables & Outboards!
Mobile Service Available
Visit our Marine Stores
144 Water Street
South Norwalk
203-831-5236
At Norwalk Cove Marina
50 Calf Pasture Beach Rd
East Norwalk
203-604-1295
Live Better at the Same Address in a Better-Built Home
Learn how modular homes are built
on your property.
Call 203-858-7198
westportmodular.com
Tear Down Specialists!
Now Registering
Fall Creative
Writing Workshops
Next Speaker Event:
How To Write a
Nonfiction Page-Turner
with Eric Burns
September 16th
2010 in Pictures, News, Politics
Monday, May 24, 2010
Tea Comes to Westport
UPDATE An overflow crowd attended the formation meeting tonight of the Westport Tea group. Westporter Dean Slack, who organized the meeting, said a number of attendees, including many local businessmen, asked that their photos not be taken. He said some were “concerned” as to how their presence would be perceived in the community. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
Comments: Comment Policy
One should not engage in activities that they would be ashamed to have associated with their name. Public discourse should be civil, well reasoned, and logical. If you don’t think a group will follow this, then start a group that reflects your values and will uphold this type of behavior.
Shame is not the same as fear of disapproval or retaliation.
The same can be said of any opinion one chooses to voice. If one holds a belief strongly enough, the disapproval of others should not be a deterrent to standing up for it. My personal opinion is that political movements do not do well shrouded in secrecy, regardless of their bend.
I understand that exercising one’s freedom of association also extends the possibility that someone will spend their money elsewhere, but the same can be said of much less serious endeavors. What if I don’t like the sentiment on the bumper sticker on a delivery truck? My grandfather was known to change his patronage if he felt that a business was being run without what he considered sufficient gravitas - “irreverence is not allowed in a professional setting.” Life is not without risks, and we can’t be afraid (or ashamed) of taking some.
That those who would join Westport’s Tea Party were so skittish about publicity should be, to them, a good indication of the damage that the national group and its followers can do to our nation.
I. too, would be be loath to broadcast the fact that I had joined ranks with yahoos, dim bulbs and, God save us, Sara Palin.
Your description of the folks who choose to join this movement is a good example of why someone might not want their interest broadcast - perhaps unfunded mandates and entitlement programs that are equally unfunded are less dimwitted.
Those who disparage or fear another voice in the democratic process have little minds indeed, and are probably lacking a cogent argument.
Regardless of whether they speak for me, I am encouraged to see that a political group is available to those who susbcribe to its values. Helps to improve the debate, and allows everyones’ views to be represented. That’s the beautiful design of a true democracy . . .
Remember that throughout Bush’s presidency, the few democrats who voiced their opinions were called “traitors” and “anti-American” by the far right. Perhaps now the tea party members find themselves in the awkward position of wanting to do the same, but fearing their hypocrisy.
Our country was founded on discourse, and discourse requires conviction. Sneaking to meetings and hiding your faces just sends a message of subversion, not courage.
I’d suggest that some of the comments here have done a great job of explaining just why some of those who came out to this meeting were wary of being identified - since those who oppose them are so quick to engage in name-calling and such. I seriously doubt the people who showed up are the sort who are ashamed about having a political point of view.
By the way, I would have attended out of curiosity if my schedule allowed. I guess that makes me uncivil, illogical, a yahoo, a dim bulb . . . to borrow from a few of the comments . . . .
I think my comments may be misinterpreted. Irregardless of one’s political stripes, we must all endeavor to conduct ourselves in a civil and respectful manner. To me, this includes how we treat others with different opinions. The depth of one’s character is shown not by how they treat family and friends, but by how they treat and associate with others.
I certainly do not hold anyone’s opinion against them, but I do think that the political environment and dialog needs to be open and transparent. By openly being associated with how we express our thoughts and conduct ourselves, it holds us to a higher standard of discourse. If my thoughts and ideas are in the spotlight, I’m much more likely to present a well-reasoned and thoughtful message and philosophy, rather than knee-jerk emotion driven ideas.
Also, for what it’s worth, I truly believe no one political party or movement has a lock on dumb ideas or bad behavior. All have been home to individuals who exhibit said behavior, they just tend to get the spotlight at different moments in history.
Mr. Katz, I would be loath to broadcast the fact that I have no understanding of civil discourse and can only resort to name calling, but you sir don’t seem to have a problem with that.
Don’t know you, Sir, nor you me, I think. Suffice it to say that you have no clue just how civil my comments were.
Dan
If calling people who you disagree with “yahoos” and “dim bulbs” is your definition of civility, then most folks are probably better off not knowing you, and I’m happy to be in that group.
No way do I think those words civil, Mr Goedde. Nor do I always (though probably too often) use epithets to describe philosophical and political opponents. However, it seems to me that the words I used were more civil than Un-American, bigoted and seditious which is what, in fact, is the “Tea Party.”
If one wishes to keep their participation in a political group private, that doesn’t bother me at all. Including “Tea” in the name but avoiding “Tea Party”, however, seems silly. It appears to be an attempt to capitalize on the PR for the Tea Party while providing plausible deniability for any relationship with that group.
My issue with this event is that using a public space - supported by taxes - such as the Westport Library, and trying to control media access, is unacceptable.
The implication that a group (be it a like-minded political group, a religious group, a civic group, or other non-business venture) is not or should not be free to sign up to use the McManus room is erroneous at best:
http://www.westportlibrary.org/about/meetrooms.html
It’s local meeting space that can and should be utilized by local groups, regardless of whether their views align with yours.
The objection Adrian was making was not to the group’s use of the room, but to their attempt to control media access while in a public space.
This is the heart of what many of us object to, the desire for secrecy and shrouding of the proceedings.
Daniel, I would vote for Sarah Palin over our community organizer. In fact, they should make her in charge of this oil spill since she knows more about Oil than our president
and can at least communicate without a teleprompter.
I am also for smaller government, free markets, strong defense and less taxes.
So I guess that makes me a yahoos, dim bulbs, redneck, racists, right wing nut and flag waving patriot.
I also miss George W. Bush.
BTW: I grew up in the ghetto’s of Bridgeport,
avoided government handouts and entitlements. I saw first hand how people can become addicted to handouts and government programs. I saw how low income housing became ghettos, destroying communities and making slaves of it’s residents.
Yeah, Mr. Coehlo—you tell ‘em. and i’m right with you!
maura marden
“This is the heart of what many of us object to, the desire for secrecy and shrouding of the proceedings.”
I think that C-Span said the same thing to Obama. So maybe these Tea Party folks were just following their leader.
If you read the Library Meeting Room Policy---
K. Under no circumstances shall the sponsor of a meeting open to the public require signin of attendees nor should any follow-up contact be made at the sponsor’s initiation.
Sounds to me like the meeting room policy supports attendees right to remain anonymous. Did I miss the section of policy that states that the press must be allowed to cover the meeting?
We’re not discussing if Dean (or another sponsor) was requiring information from the attendees. Discouraging coverage by the media, nay, requiring the media censor itself is what is at debate. Please, remove the fact that group involved was the Tea Party, and instead focus on the censorship issue! The quote from the longer WN article is seriously disturbing, no matter the group involved:
“Consequently, reporting on this particular meeting is discouraged,” he said. “If you must, we require that you do not take pictures or report on any attendees names,”
I guess that I fail to understand why you are so concerned that a group of local people wanted to meet in a public place to discuss issues that they feel are of extreme importance, and they didn’t necessarily want press coverage. If they hadn’t met in that particular meeting room, the room would have most likely been vacant that evening. I fail to see where this meeting cost the taxpayers any money. To my knowledge, the group didn’t go against any library meeting room policy.
Obviously you have read the longer WN article, so you are aware of how the media has pigeon holed the people attending these meetings as extremists. And if you have followed reports of Tea Party meetings across the country, you know how many of the group meetings that have been covered by the media have been infiltrated by liberal groups with racist signs, with hopes of making the Tea Party appear radical and racist. Perhaps that’s the reason that the Westport group preferred not having press coverage. When the press isn’t around, the opposition activists don’t seem to show up. You know, no face time.
Bottom line, I think that you are taking the censorship issue way too far. It was just a meeting of some local residents discussing some issues that they have with our government. I don’t think that there was anything subversive or secretive about the meeting. If there had been, I think that they would have chosen a much more private place in which to meet. You could have attended this meeting and heard everything that was said. Do you live in fear that some of your neighbors are planning a violent overthrow the government?
Were you this upset when Obama refused to allow media access when he held his backdoor meetings on healthcare? Just wondering.
Mr Goedde,
The policy prohibiting a requirement to sign-in is pretty clearly there to prevent organizers from creating a list and spamming attendees, which is perfectly reasonable. Interpreting that to ensure any sort of privacy of content is where I take issue, and that was clearly the intent of the organizer who was quoted as saying “reporting on this particular meeting is discouraged.”
I don’t live in fear of my neighbors overthrowing the government, and I don’t assume that all who support the Tea Party share any one particular trait, positive or negative. I do think that the organizers of this meeting were trying to capitalize on a pervasive anti-government sentiment and media focus on the Tea Party without carrying the baggage of that group, hence the derivative name Tea Group.
I favor transparency in most things that affect the public, so I would have preferred more access during the healthcare meetings, just as I would have preferred more access during Cheney’s meetings with the oil industry representatives. It does work for both sides.
Anything associated with TEA party is being attacked by the media, liberals, socialist and the left. CNN, keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi and Rachel Maddow refers to the movement as “the tea baggers”, some kind sexual inside joke that I just recently become aware of.
The Tea Party crashers with the Obama Hitler signs get all the attention, but the reality is that the Tea Parties began as a fiscal conservative protest in response to the $787 billion stimulus amid bailout backlash.
Most of the folks that have joined the Tea party movement have never attended a protest before.
These are not professional organizers, but mostly
working people, small business owners, patriots and retirees. People struggling to pay their bills while big government rack up debts and pass the buck onto taxpayers in backroom deals.
The members include republicans, conservative democrats, Libertarians, Independents, and all races(yes, it is true).
These are folks who decided to do something that the media and politicians failed to do, reason for media mistrust.
Adrian, if the organizer of this meeting was in fact trying to capitalize on the national Tea Party name (and that is strictly your assumption), why is that so disconcerting to you? You started off sounding very concerned that this meeting was being held in a public meeting room paid for with our taxes, even though the meeting cost the taxpayers zero, and then moved on to major concern about media access, even though the media was clearly there, and now your big concern seems to be the use of the Tea Party name.
You don’t seem to fear that the attendees were plotting an overthrow of the government, and I would think that you agree that there was nothing secretive or pervasive about the meeting. I suspect that it really boils down to the fact that now that your side is in control, you don’t like meetings taking place that might center on reversing that control, so you try to find fault with any individual or group that speaks out about the current administration. What else could it be? Surely you can’t really be that concerned about this little meeting that took place in our town library. It pales in comparison to the secret meetings held by Obama and yes, Cheney, both elected officials who are/were there to serve the people (one who pledged to have the most transparent administration ever). Yet regarding those meetings, you merely said that you would have “preferred” transparency. Sort of makes your comment that the way this meeting was put together is “unacceptable”, seem rather silly, doesn’t it?
Ah, Joe, go back to your Limbaugh program and learn more about the “socialists and the left” that are attacking the Tea Party or, perhaps, sit around more with your friends and discuss how “Tea Baggers” is a sexual reference and stop trying to rationalize your paranoid screed.
So Joe, I guess you’re paranoid. Nice to see that Dan is back in the discussion. What would we do without him?
Rick - how you went from my comment about wanting openness to a belief that I “don’t like meetings taking place that might center on reversing control...” is beyond me. That logic would have me oppose the Republican party, for starters, and I don’t think you’ll find any evidence of that in my comments anywhere. Yes, I acknowledge that I am a registered Democrat, but your assumption that I am happy or even satisfied with the status quo is as much of a stretch as those on the left who assume that all Tea Party supporters are alike in any meaningful way.
Well informed dissent is healthy and you are way off base if you think that I am an uncritical supporter of this or any previous administration. However, if you can seriously argue that “tea” wasn’t, at some level, used to capitalize on the press surrounding the Tea Party, there’s probably no point in discussing this further.
Would it make you feel better if I had said that I “preferred” openness in the library, or that the white house meetings on both sides were “unacceptable”? You’re the one who twisted my words to be censorship, I won’t argue further over the degree of umbrage taken with any of these activities. That, to me, is silly.
Again, I had no issue with this group using the library, my issue was the stated desire for it not to be covered in the press.
Adrian is,as the text proves, correct on both points.
For sure, the group used “Tea” in its title to link itself to the better known group. However, for the same reason they did not want the press there, they were chicken to use the “Tea PARTY” nomenclature because the thrust of that “party” so reviles logical minds and the American Spirit.
Just as surly, the group had every right to meet in a “public room.” It’s just a shame that the group’s espousals are such drivel that even they are ashamed to be associated with it or with the real name behind it.
Adrian, please, I never argued that “tea” wasn’t used to capitalize on press surrounding the Tea Party. It’s just that you seemed to be so fixated on the title of the group, and whether or not is was a some type of PR coup. All I’m saying is what difference does it make if it was, and whether it was labeled Westport Tea Group or Westport Tea Party. If you read the longer WN article about the meeting, you would discover that Dean Slack, when asked why the title, explained that he felt that since John Izzo is planning a run for office under the Westport Tea Party, the group shouldn’t be insinuating that they support John Izzo, hence they shouldn’t call themselves Westport Tea Party. It’s as simple as that. And Dean responded to the question immediately unlike many politicians who need a few days to craft a measured response.
And it was because of your fixation on “tea” that caused me to assume that your only goal was to try to taint the group itself. Sorry for casting you in with the name calling posters, because you certainly sound like a very reasonable person. And although I never said that I thought that you were entirely satisfied with the status qou, obviously you feel I suggested it, and for that I am also sorry, because I really don’t know you.
And yes, it certainly would have sounded better if you had said that Obama’s and Cheney’s secret meetings were “unacceptable” and that you would have “preferred transparency” at the library meeting. “Unacceptable” is a very caustic word and plainly fits secret meetings of elected officials on a national level. “Preferred transparency”, not so caustic, and most likely fits your concern of the local meeting. Sometimes when comments are typed and not verbalized, it’s hard to tell the emotion behind the comments.
I also think that it’s been explained over and over again why these folks might have felt a little uncomfortable with media involvement based on what has taken place on a national level. All you need to do is read the comment above mine. If you read all the above comments you will see everything from the meetings being shrouded in secrecy to people who attend these type of meetings being dimwits. And bottom line, the press was there and interviewed several attendee’s, using their names. So in my estimation.....no harm, no foul. So what say we call it a night, or you may have the last word.
And those damn Democrats, using the name “Democrat” to imply that they are the more democratic party! How offensive of them, what underhanded marketing they are employing, preying on the democratic feelings that [hopefully] burn in every American . . .
Sounds absurd, right? Just as absurd as the argument (raised by a few posters above) that the Tea Party is just trying, through some naming gimmick, to capitalize unfairly on the patriotic feelings associated with that term. If THAT’S the toughest criticism to come from the left, I’d say the Tea Party has a bright future . . . .
Look, I can’t help some of you people think for yourselves you going to have to figure it on your own. You can’t spend your time watching MSNBC, CNN, ABC and reading left leaning blogs and expect to understand the Tea Party movement.
I never heard anyone say, give me socialism or give me death.
Daniel, as for Limbaugh program I don’t listen to his show nor any of the conservative talk radio. I don’t have the time. Not sure how you linked me in with his show. Maybe you need to stop watching MSNBC for while.
Besides, the best entertainment right now is in the White House and Congress. One manufactured crisis after another, as the world goes round.
I associate you with Limbaugh, Joe, because you spew the same tripe he does.
“Manufactured crisis?” What are you talking about? That thinking displays the paranoia I mentioned earlier.
Also, FYI, I never heard of “give me democracy or give me death” either The LIBERTY alluded to in the CORRECT quote might come under socialism as well as anything else, though I much prefer our democratic republic.
If it walks like a duck, etc, Joe.
Enough.
Next entry: First Westport Tea Draws 90
Previous entry: Democrats Nominate John Hartwell for 26th Senate District
-->
talk
about balancing
their work
and motherhood.
Tune in every Monday, 12:30 pm.
Top
Driver,
the nation's premier driving school, is now in Westport at
830 Post Road East
Note: WestportNow Publisher Gordon F. Joseloff is also First Selectman of Westport
