SF Tea Party


Please tell me who the Republicans are that are in the LP state party. I'll list them here so you can more easily tell me who they are. And also let me know which counties are Republicans too so I can find Libertarians to take them back!

Is it:

Chair Kevin Takenaga? Bill Bray award winner, not sure how long in LP but is not a Republican, at least not in his politics that I know of

N. Vice Chair Rich Newell? He has been a Libertarian candidate, supporter and activist since the 1980s or even 1970s, I saw his old brochure that Ted Brown dug up

Is it S. Vice Chair Zander Collier? I don't know much about him, maybe he is .... but he is doing a great job prospecting for libertarians on facebook and turning them onto the LP and not the GOP and helping Norm Westwell and others run for city council positions or take other stepping stone position on local boards and such

Secretary Gale Morgan... he has been a LP member for years, is it THAT that makes him Republican or the fact that he helped get the Sacramento LP to endorse Kevin Johnson DEMOCRAT for mayor of Sacramento....

Is it Treasurer Brian Darby? He is chair of my county, Santa Clara's LP, he helped organize a group to oppose the 49er stadium in Santa Clara .... does that make him Republican?

Okay, it's the at large and alternates isnt it?

Terry Floyd.. don't know much about him, except his great convention he helped put together for the LP in 2007 and his staunch support of ending floor fees and his work walking in the Gay Pride Parade in SF

Jill Stone and Alan Pyaett (sp) both ran as LP candidates last year, but I don't know much about them, what do you know?

Mark Selzer? Has been in the LP for some time I hear

Mike Seebeck? He is doing great work in legislation annalysis, and he did work for the LP in Colorado before coming here.... is CO LP a bunch of Republicans too?
Or how bout....

Matthew "Boomer" Shannon
Eric Bresson
Matt Barnes....

all 3 are from San Bernardino and bring many new people to convention and bring many new members into the lp monthly, are they the GOPers in disguise?

maybe it's Jesse Thomas, your former fellow Excommer who voted WITH YOU against endorsing DPI back in March at the ExComm meeting

Is it the alternates Tricia Marcos, my fiance', strange... she registered to vote in 2008 for the first time, and is registered Libertarian and voted for all Libertarians in 2008...

or Savva Vassiliev? He is running for dist 27 state assembly seat in 2010 as a Libertarian ... but he is young, pro-life and a supporter of Ron Paul... jury is out... I just met him

no wait... IT'S ME!!!!

You got me.... I was raised by a libertarian leaning GOPer father (and a democrat mother) who didnt know he was a libertarian... until my brother told us about Harry Browne and the LP in 1996 after seeing Harry speak at this college in Cleveland ... I had a "Dole/Kemp" sticker on my car that year but voted for Harry Browne and have voted for the LP choice for president and every other office running an LP (except one office in Michigan and Lt. Governor in 2006 in Cali). Certainly I am not the only LPer who doesnt vote straight LP in the election
In 1999 I helped form 2 LP county affiliates and was vice chair of one until 2001... now here is where you got me....

I was a Republican Precinct delegate from 2002-2004 in Michigan.... I supported an anti-patriot act GOP guy for state senate but we lost to a neo-con who currently serves (Wayne Kuipers), I went to their state GOP convention in 2002 and was so sickened by it and their religiosity politics I didnt do a thing for the GOP the rest of my term.... I knew I was a Libertarian... and re-joined the party in 2006 upon my moving to California, (along with registering as a Libertarian....where I have vice-chaired my county since 2006, helped John Inks get elected to my 74,000 person town's city council, same size town as Bellflower who "back when we had our best electoral success ever" elected Libertarian and 2006 LP Governor candidate Art Olivier and now am in my 2nd year serving the state Libertarian Party on the Executive Committee.

I am pro right to bear arms and anti tax, but do support the "fair tax" which I see as a way to help convince everyone of smaller government when they see how much money the Feds actually take, which is hidden now by having the withholding tax and refund system... not because I am in favor of taxation, but that probably makes me a Republican doesn't it?
I am so GOP that I was told by district 22's GOP candidate for state assembly in 2008 that he will not support me if I run as an LP for that seat, only if I changed to GOP, I told him I won't be running as GOP... so NOT getting GOP support against the Democrat sure makes me a staunch Republican if I must say so myself

I am pro choice and in favor of gay marriage, was a supporter of the no on 8 campaign, and only support DPI as a way to punish the married straights who are too selfish in not letting gays have marriage by voting for Prop 8

I am pro legalizing all drugs, prostitution, gambling, ending smoking bans, but against affirmative action and government subsidies for farmers and businesses... all of this makes me a Republican doesn't it?

So please Rob, in all your supreme knowledge, please tell me who at the LPC is a Republican, I need to know, it is my fiduciary duty to keep only Libertarians on the LPC board, and I loved how you and Francoise left the convention early which had the end result of halving your county representation in the process (which had been a whopping FOUR convention goers).... if SF is so eager to "take the party back" why is your representation so low at the events we elect the leadership at? Where was Less Antman for 20 years until 2008, where is Ed Clark, Gail Lightfoot, David Bergland and the other long time Cali Lpers? I would sure like to have them show up as we are having lots of new faces, it would be great to have 100 old schoolers show up in addition to the 70 to 100 people we had show up, it would nearly double our numbers at convention and strengthen our ranks in the fight for freedom, I sure wish Richard Rider, Bergland, Lightfoot and others would
make an effort to work with me, they never met me (except Richard via email). I certainly have not made an effort to keep them from joining the ranks of the "nubies" to the LP of California.

I think people like you need to take a long look in the mirror when they make claims of divisiveness and claims that we are worse than you at growing the party.... just how well are you growing the party with 4 reps to convention and a handfull at your meetings every month.... you have tried to keep me off your list... that does a lot for outreach to your neighboring counties... perhaps we wouldnt be so "Republican" if you guys in SF came down from your ivory tower once in awhile and helped us at our events the way many of us help you with yours, and more if you asked for it (thanks to Starchild for his help in past JSA's in Santa Clara).

Peace bro,

-TJ Campbell
Vice Chair Santa Clara LIBERTARIAN Party
At Large rep to the LIBERTARIAN Party of Calfornia

“Do not mistake activity for achievement”
– John Wooden

Actually, TJ, those people you mentioned are not really the elected leadership of the LPC.

The Chair violated the bylaws by calling for a vote by acclamation for the officers. Bylaw 18:

In all voting for Party officers or for endorsements
of candidates for public office, the voting shall include the option of "None of the Above."

The requirement for NOTA is in the bylaws, not in the convention rules, so the motion to suspend the rules to allow for voting without NOTA was out of order, even if 2/3 of the delegates were in favor. I objected twice, and twice was overruled.

Since it was clear that the Chair was not going to follow the Bylaws, and that the delegates were going to let him get away with it, the remainder of the convention was simply a farce (as I'm sure the next two years under these unelected officers will be).

That's why Francoise and I got up and left after Takenaga was re-"elected" by a procedure not allowed by the bylaws. The convention was no longer being held in accordance with the bylaws, so our continued presence would have been futile.

I'm planning on making a formal complaint to the LNC about the fact that the current LPC officers were not properly elected and will ask that the Judicial Committee take action to remedy this situation.


Rob wrote:

I'm planning on making a formal complaint to the LNC about the fact
that the current LPC officers were not properly elected and will ask
that the Judicial Committee take action to remedy this situation.

I am very disappointed to hear your report of the convention.

I am curious: what remedy is available for the problem, and what will
you ask the JudCom to do? Should the previous officers remain in
office? Should a new election be held by the regions? Or should all of
the offices be declared vacant?

FWIW, LPNH doesn’t have these kinds of problems... (-:

~Chris, former LPC JudCom member

Rob, you kind of proved my point. Intellectual bullies overly
impressed with their own knowledge of parliamentary procedures who
immediately launch into full blown petulance. This is what I had
heard of the sf libertarians from many at the national convention last

You know, I take that back. I'm not going to take this to the LNC. After all, why would they de-certify a state party leadership that shares their own ideology? The LNC only kicks out those people whose ideologies are inconvenient (Keaton, Wrights, and -- mark my words -- Ruwart and Hawkridge eventually).

BTW, I'm sorry to hear that Terry got onto the ExCom. He's too good a guy for that. I wish I had known he was running, and I'd have given him the talk that Mark Johnson gave me when I told him I was planning on running for ExCom -- "DON'T DO IT!" Of course, I ignored Mark's wise advice, and I regretted it almost immediately. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that Terry will be the lone vote by himself on the ExCom, as I was on so many ExCom votes last year.


Glenn, there's a word for people who think that the majority should get whatever they want, with no protections (Constitutional or Bylaw) for the minority.

They're called Democrats. :slight_smile:

I will not apologize for insisting that the Libertarian Party not trample the rights of minorities by ignoring its own bylaws. If that insistence makes me a "bully," then so be it.

Not as disappointed as I am. Attending that convention was a total waste of time and money.

As you may recall, Francoise is very protective of her Sundays, so she made a big sacrifice to show up in Visalia (and she drove me there as well). When it was clear that the officer elections were not going to be held according to the bylaws, I saw no reason to make her hang around for the nonsense, and since she was my ride home, we both left.

Anyway, there are other avenues for advancing Liberty in California that don't involve the LPC, so I'm not going to beat my head against a wall trying to make the LPC under its current un-elected leadership do the right things.

Nothing happened last weekend that can't be fixed by 2011, in plenty of time for the next Presidential election-year convention.

Dear Rob;

Sounds like it's time for a new Libertarian Party
of California called the Liberty Libertarians Party of
California - LLPCA - who stand for Truth Justice and the
American Way ( whatever the heck that is).

Who stand for peace - prosperity - free enterprise - no taxes
- strictly limited government and a non aggression policy.
Who lead by example through the strength of their principles
and not wait for a poll to come out and then decide that's
the direction to head towards.

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno


  Unless I missed it, you still haven't identified the individuals making those accusations about SF Libertarians. I assume at least some of your "many" sources have the moral courage to publicly identify themselves?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))


Why would I do that? I repeated what was hearsay because I found it
consistent with what I have witnessed since being part of this group. I
proffered this personally and made no effort to disguise that I said it.

The views on this very thread are consistent with the rolling of the eyes
that I understand took place at that national convention everytime a SF
libertarian spoke, or used parliamentary procedures to interrupt,
stifle/stymie debate.

Is this absolutely fair, I don't know.

Maybe it was justified. God knows a convention that produced Bob Barr as a
presidential candidate was inherently flawed. But perhaps there is a point
buried in there...........you have to play nice.

Your personal unwillingness to participate in an event (tea party) with a
nice group of people whose views on taxation are consistent with your own
was curious, but that was your choice.

The harassment of the organizer by others as to her unwillingness to
clutter the message with all manner of libertarian issues was petulant.

I met her, she was a nice lady........and I thought that it was a nice
event. A march in San Francisco populated by polite working
folk........with no rude blocking of traffic, angry confrontation etc.

I will inevitably be called names again.......Neocon....again...republican
again....I could give a hoot.............


  You ask why you would identify the persons who were the sources of what you call the "hearsay" you repeated about San Francisco Libertarians? I think a more relevant question would be, "Why not?" Surely not all of the "many" individuals you say told you this aren't afraid to stand up and be publicly identified with their opinions. Did they actually use the phrase "San Francisco Libertarians," or was that your phrase? I find it curiously similar to the "San Francisco Democrats" phrase notoriously invoked by Republicans.

  I'm not sure where you get the idea that I was unwilling to participate in the Civic Center Tea Party event. I repeatedly contacted the organizer you refer to, Sally Zelikovsky, trying to get her to schedule myself (or another libertarian, if for some reason she had a problem with me) as a speaker. I was not harassing her, nor was anyone else that I'm aware of, unless disagreement via email constitutes harassment in your book, in which case your message below is harassing me! Despite her refusal to schedule any libertarians to speak, I showed up and took part in the event anyway, and encouraged others to do the same.

  Was it a "nice" event? On the whole I found it to be so. I was pleasantly surprised that non-scheduled speakers including Libertarians Agnieszka Bernstein and myself were in fact allowed to address the crowd, although as I believe I previously posted, I suspect this was due to the fact that they didn't end up securing a permit after all due to excessive government rip-off fees for insurance, and thus would have had no legal ability to exclude anyone from speaking (I overheard some people talking about there not being a permit). On the other hand, a number of the protesters got into an angry confrontation with another group holding an immigrant rights' event in front of City Hall. Personally I don't have a problem with angry confrontations as a part of protesting, but they should be for a legitimate purpose. I did hear plenty of legitimate anger at the event as well, against government taxes, overspending, etc. But one person called me "ignorant" for supporting the immigrants (not very nice!), and I also found the fact that a bunch of "Infiltrator" signs had been prepared for the purpose of holding next to people who showed up with contrary messages a little disturbing -- I don't recall having been to a mass protest before where people bothered to be so organized about seeking to single out anyone who might show up with opposing views. (I'm not aware that any of those signs were actually used, but I saw a pile of them sitting by the Federal Building.)

  I'm not sure how you determine that the people at the Tea Party were "working folk." I have a job working as an escort and exotic dancer, my friend I encountered outside City Hall and recruited to hold the second sign I brought works as an escort and madame, and I know Marcy, Jun Dam, and a couple others I saw there are working, but given the economy, I imagine some of the participants were unemployed. Given the number of older people present, I also assume at least some of them were retired. Did you take a survey?

  I certainly agree with you that the nomination of Bob Barr as the Libertarian presidential candidate last year was flawed. I suspect most of the anonymous accusations you've heard about "San Francisco Libertarians" were from supporters of Barr and/or his eager running mate Wayne Allyn Root, who don't like the outspoken opposition of some of us from this region to one or both of those candidates and to the trends in the party that produced them.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild, Glenn, and All,

Well, Starchild never ceases to amaze me, and his response to Glenn's heartfelt frustration with our sometimes difficult behavior is of publishing quality.

Yes, Starchild was at the S.F. Tea Party; and I was so proud of him for holding his huge sign with the word LIBERTARIAN, against the fierce wind; taking the microphone and speaking out in favor of our libertarian principles, and holding his peace when "God Bless America" was sung with such fervor. More of us should have been there showing the Republican hordes that Libertarians are way ahead of them in the liberty-defending business.

But, why the momentary hush when Starchild took the microphone (you could have heard a pin drop). I say it is because, as Glenn may have intimated, the LPSF has a bad rap as dogmatic and hard to get along with. In my personal opinion, we need to work on this. And BTW, in no time at all Starchild had the crowd whooping and clapping; making it evident that Libertarians are OK (sometimes, maybe, we Republicans need to be careful just in case) after all.

Just a thought.

Kind regards,


dearest Starchild

I promise you they used the words "San Francisco Libertarians", I think I've
repeated this several times.

I think if you have difficulty discerning the phrases San Francisco
Democrat, and San Francisco Libertarian .........you may be
a bit of a dullard. I frankly have no problem telling a loaf of San
Francisco sourdough from a San Francisco bag of hot air.....

I'm glad that you enjoyed the event......i wish I'd known you were there
after all the drama and ministrations as to the makeup of the speakers and
the uniformity of message......i would have taken the opportunity to say

Now as to the makeup of the crowd........you are correct that I did no
scientific sampling to confirm that it was made up of "working class folk",
perhaps this was a know it when you see it sort of thing.

As to your vocation, I'm not sure what relevance it has that you and your
friend work as a hookers? I'm all for hookers rights the same way I'm all
for the rights of shoe repairmen..........but I don't see how that is
relevant to the discussion. I may labor as a candlestick maker, but I
labor.........and even if I am absent gainful employment as a candlestick
maker does my presence make the crowd less workingclass..?? I don't expect
extra credit for laboring as a candlestick maker either...........my friend
the butcher would probably agree. The baker........well he is a cynical

Love and Liberty



From one of my sources outside the state of California

Hey Glenn,

I just read your thread below and Starchild’s recent response (not in this
message). You can let him know that your source was a die-hard Mary Ruwart
supporter/contributor and not at all for Bob Barr. However, if I’m your
only source, you have quoted me somewhat incorrectly. I would not be able
to distinguish who the SFLP members were at the convention. The blocks were
by state. My recollection was that the state of California block was
largely at odds with most of (but not all) the rest of the convention. It
appeared to me that members of the CA party attempted to use a significant
amount of parliamentary procedure to slow down the convention so that it
would be unable to enact changes to the bylaws. After an amount of time,
the majority of the convention members banded together to rapidly vote down
attempts to stall procedure. As a relative newcomer to attending
conventions, this may be somewhat the norm. I do not know.

My recall of the bylaws changes and disagreements involved was that most
seemed rather esoteric to me. Sometimes it seems to me that we are more
eager to fight over minutia where we disagree instead of moving forward on
the majority of issues in which we have common interest. It is possible
that some of the wording changes might carry greater significance than I
understand (look at how the Supreme Court butchers the constitution where
language is imprecise – or even where it is precise). I believe that I
recall the language of the bylaws being changed to eliminate some very
specific platforms and directions in favor of statements of broader
direction. Again, the changes may not be for the better. I can’t recall
specifics very well, as this does not tend to be how I focus my attention.
I am more about trying to persuade others toward a libertarian direction
than thinking in terms of the more minor differences between individual

My general impression of the direction of the Libertarian Party is that it
has been moving toward trying to seat as many candidates in office as
possible. “Quality Control” of candidates appears to be an inexact science
at best. I suspect more than a few candidates, while having significant
libertarian leanings, are less than fully familiar with the real
underpinnings of libertarian thought. This thrust toward greater political
exposure and electability may result in some watering down of “pure”
libertarian principle. Whether it is best to remain “pure” and potentially
less politically empowered or to be a little more flexible and inclusive, I
do not know. I think that issue lies at the crux of most of the

My biggest frustration with the CA party at the convention lay with its
methodology rather than what it seemed to be trying to accomplish. I am not
oriented toward trying to disrupt proceedings as much as trying to persuade
others toward my point of view. I also think that extremely strong rhetoric
often tends more toward polarization rather than galvanization toward a
common cause. Again, I may be prone toward naiveté. I understand that a
major concern of many party members (not just from CA) is that the party is
being taken over by a Republican element. As I see it, there is some
paranoia involved in this fear, but also more that a little truth. The
Republican Party has completely abandoned its core constituency (I was going
to say core principles, but I’m not sure I that I’ve ever been able to
determine a coherent core). Many disaffected Republicans have moved toward
the Libertarian Party as the Republican Party has abandoned them. There is
a general perception among many that Libertarians and Republicans are very
similar. I’ve had to correct that assumption many times. A large part of
the disaffected Republican population is aware that libertarian principles
include limited government/taxation and support for free markets. This
tends to resonate with and attract many. However, they may not fully
understand that libertarian principles include limitation (or absence) of
government in much more than just the economic arena. If those that do not
understand this pour into the LP in large enough numbers to have significant
impact, it is possible that their influence will direct the party away from
supporting key non-economic related freedoms. The election of Bob Barr
didn’t help in this regard. While at the convention, Barr stated many of
the right things. However, his history has been quite antithetical to many
of our principles. I remember leaving the Denver convention just hoping
that he would honor what we stand for and stay on a true libertarian
message. However, his history was bad and I don’t believe many trusted him
(libertarians or potential converts).

Anyway, feel free to forward this to Starchild if you wish, I’m not
concerned about my anonymity. As I mentioned to you before, I remember
being very impressed with him at the convention. He was very well spoken,
obviously proud to be libertarian, and seemed to me quite principled, though
a little more flamboyant than I am used to in my parts. The man has the
guts to stand up and be counted. I hope to meet him some day when out
visiting you.


P.S. I do agree with your comment that it is better for the participants at
the tea party to stay on message. The tea party events were broadly
recognized as being tax protests. It is probably better to have a large
number of individuals all speaking with one voice on that issue than to
fractionate the crowd (and possibly even drive some off) with unrelated
(although very pertinent libertarian) messages. I’ve usually found that
focus tends to produce better results. A separate event for another issue
(for example, promoting re-legalization of drugs) would probably be better,
and may attract elements of other political persuasions that are not
congruent with libertarians on the tax message. We do not have to fight
every libertarian issue at every battle. That often becomes just too noisy
for any message to be heard.

Wow. Calling a dedicated Libertarian activist a dullard. Someone please explain to me again why we refuse to restrict membership in this group to people active in the LPSF. I keep losing that vote at meetings for some reason.

Anyway, IIRC, the person in the California delegation using parliamentary procedure to slow down the convention was Aaron Starr. And I think that someone who considers Starr to be representative of (or supported by) a majority of California Libertarians, much less the head of a "state of California block" doesn't know much about the LP in California.

But it is disappointing to know that we San Franciscans weren't distinguishable from other California Libertarians by appearance alone. We have much better fashion sense. :slight_smile:

And finally, regarding this source's comment about keeping the tea parties on-message, I think there would be far less resistance from Libertarians if we knew those rules were applied uniformly. But as we've seen, the Republicans allowed all sorts of non-tax-related messages at the event, such as anti-immigrant tirades, so long as those non-tax-related messages were part of the Republican platform.

I predict the same thing will happen at their next event.


I second Mike D.'s Amen on the name calling, remain partial to leaving this list open to everyone who fits our style of communication (and politely weeding out anyone who does not), and encourage outreach to Tea Partiers and any other group that shares at least one issue with us (taking them to task on the other issues when appropriate).

Maybe Rob would like to place the subject of managing the Discussion List on next meeting's agenda?



I would submit that you "name-call" as much or more as anyone else on this
board. You and Starchild liberally sprinkle your posts with terms
deliberately used in a condescending manner. You toss about the words
Republican or Democrat with a sneer on your face, and everyone here knows
that you mean these terms to be derogatory.

So spare me the false outrage. That goes for you too Starchild. You
flutter off like a butterfly as if you are somehow morally above the fray
that you in fact started.

Your desire to restrict membership in the board to people you know is in a
word "facism". Credit to those who roll their eyes when you pipe
up........and vote down your motions.

I'm as much a libertarian as either of you................and that means I
probably won't conform to whatever lockstep you think I ought to be marching

Have a good nite gents

Friesan Fire in the Derb tomorrow



  It's rather ironic that you would post this, as I was just getting ready to write a message defending the ability of folks like yourself to be on this list. And I still will defend you being here, if you desire to be! I don't mind people disagreeing with me, and I'm just idealistic/utopian enough to generally believe in the merits of uncensored discourse, while simultaneously cynical enough to believe in the "give them enough rope" theory in cases where discourse appears conspicuously lacking in merit!

  Your line, "You flutter off like a butterfly as if you are somehow morally above the fray that you in fact started," made me laugh. 8) I have no idea precisely what you're trying to say, but I appreciate your poetic turn of phrase, and given my sometime penchant for wearing fairy or butterfly wings, found it amusing.

  I confess however to being a bit confused by where you're coming from. You say you're as libertarian as either Rob or I, and I'm not going to argue with that, because I think it's more constructive to talk about the degree to which a person's *views* are or aren't libertarian, than to say a *person* is or isn't libertarian. The latter being another one of those ingrained semantic habits it's difficult to consistently avoid, but I'm working on it!

  Anyway, taking it as a given that you self-identify as strongly libertarian, and that you've showed that your standards for what constitutes civil conversation are somewhat less exacting than those of most members of this board -- I think that's fair to say, wouldn't you agree? -- I don't understand why you would object to the words "Republican" or "Democrat" being used in a derogatory manner. I don't mean toward you, just in general. I haven't called you a Republican or Democrat, and I don't recall Rob doing so either. You aren't suggesting that either of these terms is too dignified or worthy to ever be used in a derogatory fashion, are you?

  I certainly haven't heard anyone demanding you march in lockstep. And I'm not aware of having expressed any outrage toward you, false or otherwise. If you think I sounded outraged about something you said, please show me where. As for restricting the use of the lpsf-discuss list allegedly being "fascist," I would encourage you to lobby the members of the state Executive Committee to make *their* email list open. You are aware that the committee whose members are elected to *represent* all California Libertarians forbids LP members who live in California to even read their list, let alone post to it? I don't share Rob's desire to limit posting on this list to San Francisco Libertarians, or people who don't call names (although I try to discourage name-calling), but I think what he's expressed a desire to do is objectively much less objectionable than what the LPC is *already* doing. Wouldn't you agree?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

P.S. - I notice that the person whose email you forward below said he/she is not concerned about anonymity, so I hope you will give up the secrecy and let me know who it is, given that the person expressed an interest in meeting me when out here in SF.

P.S. - Just realized I never responded to your question in your previous message about the relevance my friend and I being sex workers. I apologize, as I can see how that was not terribly clear. I was responding, in a round-about way, to your description of the Tea Party attendees as "polite working folk," by indirectly making the point that who is "working" might not be so obvious, since many peoples' jobs don't fall into the nine-to-five, suit-and-tie category (and for that matter, those who did have to work 9-5 would have been less likely to be at the Tea Party, since it took place on a weekday!) I'm also sorry I didn't know you were there and get a chance to say hello, but if you stick around and get involved in local SF libertarian activism I'm sure we'll meet soon enough.