Last week, Jim Geraghty of National Review's "Campaign Spot" weighed in on where the tea parties should go next and offered the following idiotic, ACORN-style plan (link, bolding added):

If 100-1,000 people show up at a rally, the event may or may not get media coverage, and that coverage may or may not be snarky or dismissive. Congressmen may or may not notice, and the President's spokesman will announce he's not aware of them... But if 100-1,000 people show up at a town council, city council, etc. meeting, in most places, that's an earthquake. It varies widely, but most local government budget meetings are sleepy affairs, and many local lawmakers are used to settling their spending with minimal scrutiny. They've never seen anything like several hundred people showing up with the same message of "don't waste my money."

I sent him an email with a link to this post in which I described how the tea parties are futile and in which I link to my perennial better alternative: question authority.

Admittedly, in my email I might not "exactly" have sugar-coated things. For instance, I took a few swipes at Glenn Reynolds. And, I included this:

You might recall several years ago where a far-left group surrounded Karl Rove's home and banged on the windows. What you're suggesting is just one small step up from that.

Which is true: what Geraghty is suggesting is - or at least would turn out to be - just a step above what ACORN and other far-left groups do: use the power of a large group of people to intimidate politicians and businesses into doing what they want. Those who show up at the meetings might be as polite as can be; the subtext of physical intimidation will still be there. And, while there wasn't as far as I know any violence at any of the parties, it's not difficult to imagine some of the 1000 or so people showing up for a meeting shouting out some unfortunate things or carrying borderline threatening signs as several people did at the parties. And, it wouldn't be effective in any case because for every 1000 that the partiers could get to the meetings, a far-left group could get 2000.

Did Geraghty think about what I was suggesting and admit his plan might have a few flaws? No, he didn't. In his reply, he said I was a "fool" for pointing out that his plan involves a subtext of physical intimidation, and said that I should "stop wasting everyone's time with this demagoguery".

I think it's both hilarious and sad that someone who supports a movement involving people thinking they're having an impact by wearing tea bag earrings and colonial-era outfits while carrying loopy signs accuses me of demagoguery. Especially since Geraghty is suggesting 100 to 1000 people showing up at a no doubt small local meeting room; anyone with any experience knows how that would work out.

And, especially since the plan I'm promoting - one I sent to several National Review writers before the election and they obviously had no interest in - is quite far from demagoguery. I want those who are good at asking questions to engage politicians in debate designed to show the flaws in their policies or to call them on their lies and misleading statements. Ideally, that would raise the level of debate in the U.S. above that to be found on cable TV and occasionally at The Corner and - instead of worrying about what Meghan McCain just tweeted - we could have an actual high-level, detailed debate about important policy matters. I'd like some debates about immigration, but if Geraghty and the rest want it to be about the impact of spending trillions of dollars too, that's fine with me.

But, instead of co-opting my far superior plan, Geraghty is still pushing his ACORN-style plan. In a Pajamas Media interview with Reynolds (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/77207) he reiterates his plan still using the same large numbers and language and, around 16:20 (yes, it was as excrutiating as it sounds), he suggests that politicians can be "in the kindest terms possible, 'intimidated' of running afoul" of the" protesters.