Fine, but I am not a senior party member. My great crime was being contrary to the anti-administration rhetoric they brand "supporting of the Constitution."


Generation Opportunity is not (to my knowledge) birthers, just former Bush White House staffers and GOP operatives promoting the party agenda and seeking supporters of it. Of course, the latter tends to attract birthers, hence birther rebuttals are often quite relevant. Apparently, mine was not appreciated.


No more so than jumping into political debates or historical discussions here or anywhere else. I was naïve enough to think a FB group ostensibly devoted to patriotism would not be a nakedly partisan front. My point was that the whole reason GO(P) brands their partisanship as patriotism is to 1) nudge civic minded moderates and independents toward the GOP and 2) use the participation of civic minded moderates, independents and even (GASP!) liberals as "proof" of popular support they can cite during elections, legislative proceedings and interviews. In that respect it is somewhat surprising they perm banned me; they do not really care what I think or even what I SAY so long as I am one more person they can convince journalists and legislators supports the GOP.


There is a world of difference between

1) A few private citizens starting an activist group that quickly resonates with their neighbors and ultimately draws establishment notice/support vs.

2) A few party leaders CREATING a group that NEVER consists of more than a handful of people but representing it as a large spontaneous public movement.

I am from TX; Karl Rove has been subjecting me to that crap ever since the early '90s, when he set up an "independent" group to accuse Ann Richards of lesbian cocaine parties in the governors mansion and packing state agencies with fellow homosexuals. Not that that had ANYTHING to do with the Bush gubernatorial campaign any more than Carolina push polls about McCains "black daughter out of wedlock" in 2000 had to do with his primary campaign. Or the Swift Boaters in 2004 had anything to do with his 2004 presidential re-election campaign. It was all just a happy coincidence.

Grassroots politics is older than America, but the latter was pratically founded on it. What were the Committees of Correspondence, the Minute Men or the Continental Congresses but grassroots politics? The whole point was that individuals unrepresented by federal leaders on the other side of the world took it upon themselves to band together and remedy that. There is nothing wrong, and a great deal right, with that, but when three outgoing White House staffers get together to manipulate public opinion and media perception, that is not a "grass roots" organization, it is astro-turfing.


The professional aspect of this article is the only thing even slightly questionable, but the thing is, most of the people on your spreadsheets work for a living, and so do not have the luxury of full time online debating. How much time did you spend making involved multi-page political posts on multiple fora last November? Far less than I, despite me cutting back drastically when I found paying work. Of your many volunteers, how many have much persuasive writing and public opinion experience/training/talent they are willing to GIVE IT AWAY for free 40 hours/week? Most people who can do that professionally are doing just that, but of course "senior White House pollster" and "Romney advisor" are not entry level positions.


I do not think most interns bring the necessary skills to the table. I suspect part of the reason the authors (alleged) former employers prefer apolitical people is because such people are less likely to have formed rigid positions reinforced by group think and echo chambers that impair ability to actually RESPOND to counterarguments. Persuasiveness is about more than just comprehensively stating ones own case and defaming the other, after all.

Then of course there is the question of how many interns and volunteers would be willing to deliberately lead a debate down a rabbit trail because they know their side is losing. Political devotees "never lose, just run out of time." Asking interns to do that sort of thing risks disillusionment and subsequent exposure, but people who are there to collect a paycheck rather than support the party are less likely to present that threat.

Partisans paying for media manipulation is neither new nor novel, and the internet is just one more huge media outlet for them to target. I would be amazed if the kind of things alleged in this article were not common (though the internets anonymity and shifting portals makes evidence hard to obtain.) Whether the pro and semi-pro shills doing the dirty work get paid is rather beside the point. However, I doubt many people with the ability to manipulate public debates would

1) Do it full time for 2) causes to which they feel no loyalty and 3) keep their mouths shut 4) FOR FREE.

A very cynical person might say that a GOP party worker insisting astroturfing does not exist is all the proof necessary. I am not accusing you of dishonesty, understand, but intelligence fosters unconscious rationalizing. Many intelligent moral people will excuse unethical behavior (particularly from those to whom they are sympathetic) if convinced it is actually some other legitimate behavior.