For Immediate Release April 29, 2013
Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation Contact: Mark Daugherty (540) 885-5627
Middle Resolution PAC Contact: Angie Parker (804) 746-1508
Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation and Middle Resolution Select Corey Stewart for Lieutenant Governor and Mark Obenshain for Attorney General
(Richmond, VA) – “Corey Stewart placed first in the joint Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation/Middle Resolution comprehensive Lieutenant Governor candidate vetting process, held on April 26-27,” said Mark Daugherty, Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation Chairman. “Senator Mark Obenshain earned first place in the Attorney General candidate vetting competition,” Daugherty added.
Angie Parker, Executive Director of Middle Resolution PAC, noted, “The Lieutenant Governor race has been very competitive with a field of excellent candidates. We are pleased that Corey Stewart demonstrated a strong grasp of the constitutional principles of limited government and individual liberty during his questioning. Furthermore, Mr. Stewart has a well-organized and well-financed campaign.” Parker added, “Senator Mark Obenshain delivered an outstanding performance during his interview. This proven strength, combined with a vigorous statewide campaign, places Mark in a good position for both the May 18th nominating convention and November 5th general election.”
Over 200 Virginia Tea Party and Middle Resolution members from 31 groups across the state took part in the vetting session, each completing scorecards based on the candidates’ responses during live interviews. Identical questions on constitutional principles principles, policy, and political philosophy were asked of each candidate; candidates were not given questions beforehand. Campaign viability was also factored into the evaluation.
Participating Tea Party groups and Middle Resolution members will share the knowledge gained from the two-day vetting process with over 1,000 convention delegates from their respective groups. These delegates will then support Corey Stewart and Mark Obenshain for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General, respectively, at the May 17-18th Republican Nominating Convention in Richmond where a multiple ballot process will lead to the selection of a Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor and a single ballot process will determine the Republican nominee for Attorney General.
The Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation is a coalition of 46 independent Tea Party and patriot groups that stand for fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market principles.
Founded in Richmond, Virginia, Middle Resolution PAC helps elect leaders who are committed to restoring individual rights and limited government as described in the U.S. Constitution. Middle Resolution also holds legislators accountable once in office, following all necessary voting records.
To learn more about the vetting process and top-ranked candidates Corey Stewart and Mark Obenshain, please visit www.virginiateapartypatriots.com and www.middleresolution.org.
# # #
“To learn more about the vetting process…please visit http://www.virginiateapartypatriots.com and http://www.middleresolution.org.”
The first link is to *this site*, and this is the only post in the past four days. The other site only has a page that looks like an ad for the two candidates, and a link to the same press release given above.
I have heard that Rob Bell scored higher than Mark Obenshain, but that the committee selected to support Obenshain anyway. I can’t find any official information either way. This is the same “transparency” we have come to expect from the major political parties, and is much of why the Tea Party started.
Your source is incorrect. The candidates that scored the highest in the process were the ones that the committee selected to support. This process included a wide array of questions, the answers for which were scored by over 200 representatives of more than 30 member tea parties. The totals were checked and then double checked, and the winners selected were the candidates who scored the highest.
I am disappointed that the link “To learn more about the vetting process” is obviously not correct. We have been waiting with great expectation for the results from the vetting. Please make the correction SOON.
Were the 200 representatives volunteers? Did they have to be un decided delegates?
I didn’t see the word endorsement used…was this an endorsement?
If it is meant just to be a vetting (not an endorsement), it would be interesting to see how close the scores were. I have studied the candidates and it appears 5 or 6 of them would be fairly hard to distinguish on the issues.
That is what led me to see who could most effectively carry the message and potentially reach new voters. I respect Corey Stewart’s record but am convinced EW Jackson is the guy who can best articulate the vision of liberty as well as reach and motivate new voters (without compromising our values). His personal story of overcoming adversity is very compelling.
Some suggestions for the future.
– Do this earlier so the recommendation has a chance to help the candidate before most delegates/voters have decided.
– Earlier would also allow you to get better representation from Tea Party members doing the vetting. Often, those who are most informed commit the soonest so they can help their chosen candidate. By waiting so late, your pool of people vetting is limited and probably skewed (assuming those who have committed were not allowed).
Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction for the Virginia Tea Party Patriots. Thanks for moving the organization forward.
Yes, the 200 representatives were volunteers who signed affidavits of confidentiality and impartiality. While his story may be compelling, the Tea Party members and representatives were not convinced that E.W. was the best candidate based on the objective information they were privy to during the vetting process. Further, all of the candidates agreed that the process was objective and fair. Thank-you for your suggestions on how to improve the process.
While I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into the vetting of candidates, I do have my OWN mind and my own vetting principles and standards. I am proud to be a delegate for EW Jackson and will be voting for him. Your letter of endorsement of Stewart indicates the federation is TELLING delegates how they MUST and WILL vote. Sorry. I didn’t become a TEA Party Patriot to be dictated to as how to vote. Are you trying to suppress delegate turnout for other candidates by implying that Stewart’s candidacy is a slam dunk done deal? I am greatly disappointed in this attempted coercion of delegate votes via your very strongly worded statement. I will NOT be following suit. EW Jacskon is the ONLY candidate who is both qualified for the job AND is able to cross political barriers the other candidates cannot, and without having to pander either. I stand shoulder to shoulder with this exceptional Godly man and encourage other delegates to VOTE YOUR OWN HEART AND MIND, not what you’re being told to do.
You’re certainly entitled to your own position, however, after seeing a side by side examination of all candidates on an equal footing, the wide sampling of unobligated and objective tea party members from across the vast majority of the tea parties in the state disagrees with you. You are certainly very welcome to take part in the process next time as a representative of your local tea party.
The process was transparent for those who participated in it. However, since sensitive campaign information was reviewed, the particulars would not be appropriate for broad distribution. Those present learned far more about these candidates than one ever would from a website, speech, or even a personal interview (I know I did).
Michael is right. I had the same problem. You are sent to generic pages that do NOT contain the following information I would expect to see if there was TRUE transparency: 1)A list of the questions. 2)A detailed accounting of the scoring. 3) A list of the participants and groups. We’re much better than the totalitarian types on the other side of the aisle. Let’s be honest and up front and show it.
I have been witness to too many political endorsements in recent years where obfuscation was the name of the game. As tea party patriots we can do much much better than the standard practice found in the major political parties.
James, the link to an explanation of the process is in the press release. Hopefully that will answer some of your questions. All of the candidates stated that they believed the process was fair and objective. All member groups of the VTPP were invited to send up to 10 representatives from their group. Perhaps next time you will be able to join us for this process.
[…] From the Virginia Tea Party press release: […]
We are still waiting for the link given “To learn more about the vetting . . .” to give us more information. Is this bogus? Is there going to be more information or not?
The link to the process overview is in the press release near the bottom.
It is very disappointing that the link above was not provided until after multiple people posted requesting it. It is also disappointing that the provided information still does not give full detail.
Above, I am told that my “source is incorrect”, but I still cannot find – here or on any of the three pages linked above – what the actual scores are. This sounds too much like the idea that “we must accept the results of the study so that you can find out what is in it.”
It sure would be nice to see the details, such as who the nine “leaders” are, exactly what all the questions were, and how each candidate scored on each question, together with the actual Phase One and Phase Two scores.
We complain that the government does not provide all the details. We need to set an example by providing *full* transparency ourselves. In the case of this study, even the link to the page on the vetting process was only added to the Press Release after multiple people posted comments requesting it. Now that a page with some basic information about the vetting process has been provided, it still does not provide all the details.
We should have been provided with a list of all the Phase One questions when Phase One started. We should have been provided with Phase One scores at the end of Phase One. Then we should have been provided with a list of all the Phase Two questions when that phase started, and we should have been provided with those scores when complete.
As things stand now, the only detail we have been provided is a list of five sample questions and the “Trust us – We’re the Tea Party” assurance that the two candidates listed above did actually score better than the others.