Perhaps you do not understand what i am saying.
Let me restate.
If you self identify as a tea partier and you think Michelle Bachmanns fiscal views and her social views match yours pretty well, then obviously you would not have a problem supporting her as a candidate.
But if you self identify as a tea partier and you agree with Michelle Bachmanns fiscal views but disagree with her social views you might have a problem with her proclaiming that she speaks for the tea party and therefore speaks for you.
Do you understand that in one case you do the deciding, in the other case she decides for you.
So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to prove that Bachman's positions on fiscal restraint and constitutional government are inconsistent with that of the Tea Party. Otherwise, your merely burning rhetorical rubber, and going no where, since if I WERE a Tea partier, and she DID mirror my positions on fiscal responsibility, as a predominant position in her platform, I wouldn't have too many concerns on her social views, as long as they weren't rabid. And without that rabidity, I wouldn't have a problem if she were attempting to speak for the Tea party, so long as she was completely focused on the fiscal issues, in her speaking
Was she not??
I'm SURE that if they did, the MSM would have presented that front & center, to try and paint the tea party as something more insidious than merely a large throng of the populace fed up with continued debt ridden government spending & taxation, with no apparent end in sight,..... thus the relevancy of my question. A quick cursory google search may have done the trick for you
That is a pretty good description of the phenominon as I understand it.
Thanks Plane. Me too, obviously