The protests were organized online, which is why they were kinda small, but huge in the aggregate. I know these were organized by grassroots activists, because I knew many of the activists.
Anecdote is bot data, in any case you can get the impression of grassroots while at the same time the funding is not apparent, as I posted before regarding climate change, I found that even sincere tea partiers that had an environmental conscience found early that the ones paying got people like them out of the picture early.
YOu still haven’t explained though how the Tea party can be astroturfed, yet completely uncontrollable.
Including RationalWiki?
How important is immigration to the TP anyway? It’s not mentioned in the Contract from America and I’ve never seen it mentioned on a rally-sign.
But it’s very important to their corporate backers, yet the Tea Parties aren’t having any of it.
Then there’s the Tea party candidates, who more often than not defeated Republicans funded with more corporate money.
The fatal flaw in all these arguments is that the corporate world LIKES the Republicans as they are. The last thing they wanted was an anti-corporate welfare, anti-earmarking movement. Sure, they like the fact that the Tea party hates regulation, but then the mainstream GOP hates regulation.
Most of the effort of the supposedly astroturf Tea Party Patriots has been towards opposing immigration reform.
Now, if they rely on money from the groups you mentioned, why aren’t they falling into line? Shouldn’t they be listening to their donors, rather than their footsoldiers?
Armey’s pro-reform. The Kochs are pro-reform. Where is the anti-reform money coming from? Answer: there is none. Democrats have been gleeful about how corporate and labor interests wrote the bill.
Yeah, just like the post-Soviet Afghan government danced to every note of the American tune. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
What part of what I said early “that it only needs to oppose taxes to fossil fuels” does not qualify as an explanation?
:rolleyes: “Soviet like discipline” among Democrats?! If only!
Some in the GOP see the reverse of the picture you paint. This article from New York Times Magazine is about how superior the Obama campaign was to the Romney campaign in making use of information technology – but not that alone.
As pointed before, that the Republicans they got elected come with other baggage is not a problem for the Koch brothers or BP.
Once again, others noticed where the funding and organization for the Tea Partiers came from:
Gigo, the Tea party, being conservative, was already going to support the fossil fuel industry. The Republican party already supported the fossil fuel industry. Much of the Democratic Party already supports the fossil fuel industry.
The Tea Party did not arise because the fossil fuel industry needed yet more supporters.
And your last post is hilarious, this idea that millions of people can be suckered into supporting a movement because they erroneously believe it is grassroots.
If this was an honest attempt to understand the Tea Party by the left, it would be a good example of overanalyzing a situation. Millions of people support the Tea Party, and they are very motivated voters.
The idea that they are all just being fooled is as ridiculous as the claim that this or that group votes Democrat because they are fooled.
But since it’s not an honest attempt to understand, but rather a conclusion in search of evidence to support it, we can take it for what it is.
Again, if the Tea party isn’t grassroots, I’d like to know what is. Anyone care to give an example? And before someone plays gotcha, let me clarify that the grassroots example should be national, not your local Fight for the Puppies organization run by a nice old lady in her spare time. National movements by definition involve big players, thus all can be fairly or unfairly called astroturfed if you have an axe to grind.
Millions thought that Palin was a good candidate, because Republican leaders and right wing propaganda told them so, also that Romney was going to win :).
The difference remains, climate change denial is the norm with tea partiers, I do remember clearly how people that were indeed tea partiers from the beginning found out that the talking points were already made and they had become mouthpieces for the fossil fuel industry, they found too late that they were manipulated, of course a good chunk do not mind being manipulated.
Giving talking points is cheesy, but no one mouths talking points they don’t agree with.
Manipulation is when you go to an anti-war protest and get handed Communist pamphlets.
Actually in the example I remember the “grassroots” lady had her trip to a climate change meet of nations paid, and she had to read a position paper that she did not agree with.
Indeed, so when are you going to tell all other tea partiers to stop being so obtuse on climate change?
From my own mingling with Tea Partiers, they are not obtuse on climate change. Some are genuine deniers, others agree it’s a serious issue but don’t think government action is useful or warranted.
That’s one of the problems I have with liberals. When it comes to matters of foreign policy, they understand that some problems just cannot be solved and intervention can have unintended consequences. But on domestic issues, they believe that all problems are solvable, or that “we at least have to try!” But with an issue like climate change, there’s very little the government can do, and much of it is potentially worse than the disease.
You know what would be helpful though, and it’s something many conservatives support? A revenue neutral carbon tax. End the payroll tax, subsitute a carbon tax. The reason this doesn’t actually get suggested is that it splits both parties.
Cite?
What makes you think that could be revenue neutral? And it’s never gonna fly if we have to feel the pain at the gas pump.
Obviously your friends are not aware of Republican Scientist Richard Alley, as even he points out the issue is solvable with no need to stop civilization and just because the left is more in tune with the science, there is really no logical reason to use partisanship with this issue, unless some powerful interests wants it that way.
So I have to insist, the tea partiers are scientifically and economically wrong on this issue, in positions of government they are the blind guiding the blind, indeed their pamphlets are already made and distributed with no independent thought.
I was making an argument, not quoting a fact. Do you disagree that higher energy prices would do harm to the economy?
All climate change proposals involve increasing the price of energy.