Counting Crowds In D.C.
Allow me to begin by stating a few things. I have not seen many photos of the "9/12" protest which happened in Washington, D.C. this past Saturday. I have not seen the faked photo, either, which was apparently taken a decade ago. I saw a few very short shots of the demonstrators on television, but since I was entertaining guests this weekend, I wasn't following the news as closely as I usually do. So, having said all of that, I am not even going to address the size of the crowd this Saturday, other than to use what others are claiming here as examples. Because I'd like to talk about the politics, in general, of counting crowds in D.C.
Counting crowds has always been political. For a very brief moment, it became scientific, but since the science was performed by those in the pay of the federal government, it immediately became suspect. In other words, there have always been countervailing claims as to the size of the crowd on the Mall, and (in my humble opinion) there always will be -- unless, at some future date, a grid is laid over the entire Mall to register where every foot is placed. Which is not likely to happen in my lifetime, I should add.
Crowd size means support for the issue being protested. A bigger crowd is supposed to translate into larger support in the general public. This is not always true, as sometimes the organization of busing people in to participate can only be called "Astroturf," because of the tactics and groups involved. This happens on the left and the right, I should add; as well as the forward, backward, up and down. It takes money to get hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of D.C. It virtually never happens spontaneously (I'm talking of rallies, demonstrations, and marches here -- not historic events such as President Obama's inauguration, which drew close to two million people, and was largely spontaneous). The organizers of protests usually put up quite a bit of money (in one way or another) to help get people to the protest. Even if they don't put up any money, they still have a vested interest in showing how successful their protest was. So organizers' claims are always suspect, because they are always exaggerated. Always.
Then there are "official" estimates. At one point, the National Park Service put these out (the Park Police, to be more accurate). The National Mall, like most parks in D.C., is federal property and hence run by the National Park Service. This allows the cops to have fun riding horses around Capitol Hill, but that's a side issue (and besides, the tourists love the mounted cops). The Park Police used to fly over demonstrations in a helicopter, and take photos (and movies, as well). They began using grid analysis to get a fairly accurate count of the size of the crowd. You take an aerial photo, blow it up, and then lay a grid over it. You take three or four representative grid squares (tightly-packed crowd, loose crowd, crowd fringe, mostly empty) and then, with lots of magnification, very carefully count exactly how many people are in these specific representative grid squares. You then count the number of grid squares which fall into each category, and from there it's an easy multiplication problem to estimate the crowd size.
This Era Of Science in crowd estimation didn't last long, though, before people began noticing that demonstrations favored by whoever was currently in power got larger estimates than seemed to be justified, while demonstrations frowned upon by those in power got their numbers halved, or even trimmed to one-fourth the size which seemed to be justified.
At some point (I believe it was the arguments over "The Million Man March," but then I'm doing this from memory, so I could be wrong), the Park Police got tired of being used as a political football, and threw up their hands and walked away. They announced they would not be releasing "official estimates" any more, because nobody believed them anyway. The pro-demonstration people always claimed a lot more than were actually there, and the anti-crowd always claimed far fewer. It was a losing game for the Park Police, so they punted the entire question.
Meaning there just aren't any "official" proclamations of crowd size any more. Although I did notice that one was provided (by, from memory, "D.C. Fire and Emergency Services") for last Saturday's march -- they called the crowd size in the 60,000 to 75,000 range. So maybe the people responsible for fire and ambulance support are jumping into the crowd-counting fray. It makes sense, because that would be an important thing to know if you have to be the one to order an ambulance in. To be fair, the supporters of the demonstration have made claims up to two million for crowd size.
Now, there's a big difference between 60,000 people and 2,000,000 people. Stripped of excess zeroes, it is the difference between a six-dollar meal at McDonalds and dropping 200 bucks at a ritzy restaurant in the hopes of impressing your date. As I said, big difference.
So -- again, without reviewing photos of this Saturday's march in advance (post some links in the comments if you'd like me to take a look at any) -- allow me to share my rules of thumb when it comes to estimating crowd sizes. I've been in more protests on the Mall than I can count. Most in my wild and hotheaded youth, but the memories remain clear. You can easily tell the physical difference of a crowd of 100,000 and a crowd of 500,000. And it's easy to tell when your numbers are 50,000 or less, too.
But that's from actually standing in the crowd, and walking around the protest area. Guessing size from photos is a bit harder. There's a big reason for this. Washington is unique among American cities, I believe, in its strict height limits for buildings. It's an easy rule to remember, though -- no building can be taller than the U.S. Capitol. There simply is no "downtown" filled with skyscrapers anywhere in D.C. There are a few across the Potomac, but that's in Virginia and not the District. What this means is that it is very tough to get high-angle shots of crowds. You have to fly over them to get a decent shot (or, perhaps, climb the Washington Monument or be allowed to take a photo from the Capitol's roof). But -- whoops! -- this is the most restricted airspace in America. This is not Los Angeles with dozens of news helicopters which can easily get aerial shots of mundane car chases or wildfires. So all this means usual crowd photos are pretty low-angle, across the heads of the crowd, which makes it difficult to be accurate in guessing size.
Of course, now there is satellite photography available to civilians. I was astonished that, after Obama's inauguration, we had satellite photos of the event on the television within hours of the event taking place, showing the size of the crowd. These were so detailed that if you were wearing a distinctive hat, you could zoom in and find yourself -- simply stunning in detail and zoomability (if that's even a word).
But having said all that, here are my general rules. If you can see the entire crowd in one photo, and it looks like they're all within one grassy area of the Mall (or "city block" even though it really isn't); or if you can see faces clearly in the front of the photo and yet still see the sides and back which aren't all that far away -- then you've probably got a crowd in the 5,000 to maybe 25,000 range. If the crowd (tight pack) stretches back two or three grassy squares of the Mall, then you've likely got somewhere in the range of "tens of thousands" up to maybe (if very tightly packed) 100,000. If the crowd stretches halfway to the Washington Monument, with tight-pack crowds in front, and looser-pack crowds reaching all the way back to the grounds of the Monument, then you've easily got 100,000 and may have upwards of 250,000. If the crowd spills onto the Washington Monument grounds, and is tightly packed from the Capitol back to the Monument grounds, and is spilling over onto the side streets which parallel the Mall, then you definitely have 250,000 and could have as high as 750,000. If your crowd stretches past the Washington Monument, you may have a million or more. Now, this is for crowds that gather at the Capitol end, but similar yardsticks apply for crowds which gather by the Reflecting Pool between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial.
These rules of thumb may seem fairly arbitrary, and a lot of the crowd estimation I do for my own personal use is even more intuitive. As I said, if you've been on the Mall with a half a million union supporters, you know what that size crowd feels like. So "your mileage may vary," and I don't claim my figures are more accurate than anyone else's. Until someone does do accurate analysis of satellite shots, the way the Park Police used to do with helicopter photography, there's simply no way to scientifically state that any one number is "correct."
But I bet I can tell from a single photo (it has to show the back of the crowd as well as the front -- which many demonstration photos don't, I should add) whether that crowd was closer to 60,000 or 2,000,000. If the numbers were a bit closer -- say the organizers were claiming 150,000 -- it would be a lot harder to tell who was right and who was not. But the difference between 60,000 and 2,000,000 is the difference between a crowd and a teeming throng -- it's a pretty easy call to make.
-- Chris Weigant
Chris, there's a good video showing the limits of the crowd and astute comments from David Shuster here.
The Park Police made an exception for the Obama inaugural. Since you were there, I'd be very interested in your comments on this.
Matt Kibbe, president of the astroturfing agency known as FreedomWorks
'nuff said on the objectivity of THAT link.. :D
So, I guess only Democrats and those that toe the Hysterical Left line can have actual grassroots movements.
This is exactly what I am referring to in previous posts.
These are attacks on rank and file conservatives, NOT the conservative leadership.
Why do people like this hate their fellow Americans so much???
Michale.....
Osborne Ink -
That is not 2,000,000 people.
That is not 1,000,000 people.
That is not 600,000 people.
That is not 450,000 people.
Shuster's closer to the mark. If they didn't even get past 3rd street, they weren't even on the Mall proper, but rather the Capitol grounds. The video's a little jerky, but does a good job of panning around to show the whole crowd. At first I thought the stage was set up facing the Capitol, but then I realized the video was from the point of view from backstage.
"Tens of thousands" is probably about as accurate as you can get. Even 100,000 is truly stretching credulity. I would say that a fair estimate, given the fact there are people hidden by trees and the crowd seems wider than it is deep, would be in the 50,000 to 75,000 range. Say Schuster's 30,000 as a low end, and 100,000 as the absolute upper limit. But 60,000 is probably as good as guess as anyone's.
Here is what over a million, perhaps almost two, looks like. This is a weird photo, because of the Jumbotrons. The crowd bunches up in front of every screen, which gives it a "clustered" appearance, but you can clearly see the scope of the crowd. Look at this photo closely. The Capitol is at the far right. The blue/green curve to the left of it is water. To the left of that is 3rd Street (runs north/south or up/down on this photo). From 3rd to the Capitol is where the crowd in the video is standing.
I'll go with 50,000 - 75,000 as my final call, to be generous.
Now, I have to admit, that's a nice sized crowd for a demonstration. I'd call it "medium/large." It's an impressive thing to get 50-75K out for your cause. I've been to demonstrations that were lucky if they had 5,000 there. So it's nothing to sneeze at.
But it's nowhere near the inflated claims I've heard. I'd frankly be surprised if it was six digits.
-CW
Osborne Ink -
I checked out the fake photo you have up on your site, too, just out of curiousity.
That is what anywhere from 500,000 - 1,500,000 people look like on the Mall (nice shot from the top of the Wash. Mon.). I don't know what the photo is from (the American Indian Museum is indeed missing), but that's a big crowd.
Part of the problem is that most rallies are like the fake photo -- they take place starting at 3rd, and run down the Mall. The 9/12 people must have gotten a permit for the Capitol grounds instead of the Mall itself. The Inauguration filled BOTH the Mall AND the Capitol grounds (the Capitol grounds were where the ticked areas were).
In any case, the fake photo is MINIMUM half a million. A million is easily believable, and even 1.5 mil isn't out of the question.
No wonder they picked it as a fake!
-CW
Facts have a well-known liberal bias, I guess.
Thanks so very much, Chris!
Oh, and by the way, Chris: teabaggers don't like to be called "teabaggers," but that was the name FreedomWorks chose for them. What's the rule on that? Should we call them what they called themselves prior to Dick Armey's discovery of the Urban Dictionary, or should we be nice and call them whatever nice name they choose for themselves now?
My vote's for calling them teabaggers. It's not nice, but neither are the racist signs and Confederate flags.
Facts have a well-known liberal bias, I guess.
Only the facts that you choose to acknowledge. :D
It seems you got yer nose out of joint because conservative groups exaggerated the numbers at their demonstrations.
Oh my fracking gods!!! Someone call IXII!!!
:D
Of course, liberal (such as they are) groups would NEVER exaggerate their numbers, eh? :D
Michale.....
Chris, last time I checked 50+ million Americans had turned out to vote for a liberal, and two million Americans had filled the Mall to watch him take the oath of office.
By my public education-math, if we're generous and give FreedomWorks a crowd of 75,000 then they are STILL inflating the figure by a factor of 8-10 *TIMES*. Even Louis Farrakhan didn't tell a whopper like that.
Well, I am not Chris, but since it is obvious to all that you were actually addressing me with the statements, I'll address them.
Chris, last time I checked 50+ million Americans had turned out to vote for a liberal
And how many of them regret that choice now, eh? :D In other words, how'z that Democratic Agenda going for ya'all?? :D
two million Americans had filled the Mall to watch him take the oath of office.
As CW has pointed out, that was a historical moment rather than a political moment. It was a moment that transcended all but the most ardent political bigots agendas...
By my public education-math, if we're generous and give FreedomWorks a crowd of 75,000 then they are STILL inflating the figure by a factor of 8-10 *TIMES*. Even Louis Farrakhan didn't tell a whopper like that.
So, "little lies" are OK in your book... But "WHOOPERS" are NOT OK. So, the "WHOOPER", "I did NOT have sex with that woman." would not be OK, right?
Why not just say what you mean? Anyone who lies that you politically agree with is fine and dandy. Anyone who lies that you politically disagree with, is Satan Incarnate...
That about sums up your position.
Michale.....
In October of 1995, while Cinton was President, The Nation of Islam had it's Million Man March. According to the National Park Service (NPS), there were approximately 400,000 people in attendance. The Reverend Farrakhan said over a million had attended, so the organizers of the Million Man March threatened to sue. So now the NPS is banned from making crowd size estimates in D.C. In the words of NPS spokesperson Dave Barna "After the [Million Man March],the House appropriations committee said that ‘the committee has provided no funding’ for crowd estimations in gatherings in Washington, D.C. Basically we aren’t allowed to spend taxpayer dollars, that means even our salary, on crowd counts, so we’re out of it in D.C.â€
But why are we arguing about crowd size? It was a big crowd OKAY? What I want to know is why wasn't it covered by the major networks? When they even mentioned it, it was usually to ridicule any one who participated. To ridicule their values and opinions. When was the last time that you heard the mainstream media ridicule the opinions expressed by anyone at any protest or political rally of any kind on the left?It couldn't be some sort of personal bias, could it? Why is it that the left assumes that it has sole right to dissent? Why is it that when dissent comes from the left it is good in the eyes of the media, and in the eyes of some of our Democrat legislatures (I distinctly remember the word NAZI being used to describe any one who disagreed with the current administration), but when it comes from the right it is obstructionist and possibly out right seditious? Tell me, does anyone remember the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, passed at the behest of John Adams primarily intended to quell any political opposition from the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, or Progressive Patron Saint Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act of 1918, meant to suppress any opposition to any policies of the government, and of good old Woodrow. Some 2000 people were tried and convicted initially under this act, not to mention freedom of the press was severely restricted. Then in 1919 during the so called Palmer Raids, this same act was used as the basis for the arrest of some 6 to 10 thousand people. And let us not forget FDR, does anyone remember the 120,000 some odd Americans of Japanese descent who were interned for being of Japanese descent? What is the real common denominator in all of these cases? To be honest they all happened at the hands of Presidents and Congresses that were philosophically of the opinion that there should be an all powerful central government. That control of and by the experts of the central government, in all areas, including commerce, industry and the economy, and a blatant disregard of the Constitution if it suits their goals is perfectly all right. In all of these cases, for these players, the ends truly do justify the means. The marginalization of movements that oppose Progressives, to use the modern term, could be seen as just the first step in a return to policies such as the various sedition acts that have been foisted on us before. You WILL notice, that these kinds of policies have not been pursued to any great degree under so called conservative governments. The worst occurences have always been at the hands of those who wanted to strengthen the National Government.
Two words, Chris: PSYCHOLOGICAL. PROJECTION.
Two more words..
Not having any facts on your side...
Or, more accurately....
Cheery picking facts and ignoring other relevant facts that dispute your conclusions..
AKA Ostrich Syndrome...
OK, that's like a couple dozen words... Forgive me for being so loquacious.. :D
Michale.....
Interesting post because the position of the park service has many parallels to our media.
Seems the media has gotten tired of being objective so they have thrown up their hands and simply repeat the claims of both sides.
In both cases, this is a tragic loss- as no objective data actually exists.
I won't go into who this benefits more, but I can tell you who is arguing for this definition of the media. It is the folks who want a "fair and balanced" media.
Their definition is that the media provide only what each side says. And to give each side equal weight.
If one side says 3 people showed up, and the other says 1.5 million showed up, this is all we hear.
This is a loss for everyone as in this world, there are no facts, only opinions from both sides.
-David
It sounds very silly to me. Of course the group that is demostrating exaggerates their numbers. It is the reason the sky is blue -- because the sea is blue and the reason the sea is blue is because the sky is blue. The more people believe were there, the more people will join them in the long run. Ostrich Syndrome is right but not because of the cherry picking but because the people move towards a movement.
Who is jumping on this band wagon? The conservatives are truly not the party they onces were. I mean what ever happen to WWJD. What would Jesus do? Really do you believe that Jesus would say that health care is only for those who could pay for it. I mean he brought a man back to life for free. These teabaggers or whatever they want to be called should remember that the first man to die for this great nation was a black man. Doctors, nurses, and the everyday man all agree that health care for all is the best solution. The only people supporting this is the insurance companies. What has an insurance company ever did for anyone?
But I laugh at this because it is not news worthy. Please tell me how much money we could have saved if there was health care for all. Please tell me about all the preventative science that could have saved lives. Please for Pete, John, and Michael sake tell me what the hell is wrong with these people.
David,
This is a common theme from you and I am ashamed to admit that, up til now, I really didn't see the point you were trying to make.
Allow me to make up for this by stating you are dead on ballz accurate.
We don't seem to have a REAL news source these days.. Yes, there are new organizations that report facts of incidents now and again. Some, more than others, to be sure.
The problem is that the line between News and Entertainment has blurred so much to the point that News Outlets will only report what will get them ratings.
Ironically enough, that changes with the political winds.
Take two examples in the here and now.
Anthony Jones and ACORN. If someone out of time were to only pay attention to the Network News, they would have not clue one as to what the deal is with Anthony Jones and ACORN.
But those who are news savvy and get their news from a variety of different sources, Right, Left AND Middle Of The Road know exactly what is going on.
An alleged respected newsman like Charles Gibson didn't even KNOW that there was an issue with ACORN. Such ignorance is reprehensible. If it was FEIGNED ignorance, that is even MORE reprehensible..
So, I concede your point. News Organizations SHOULD give us the news. The facts.. And let the chips fall where they may...
Unfortunately, that attitude will only be prevalent based on what Administration is in power.
When Republicans are in power, it's places like MSNBC and HuffPo that will give us the facts, granted with their own twist or spin.
When Democrats are in power, it's places like FOXNEWS and DRUDGE that will give us the facts, granted with their own twist or spin.
Even MORE unfortunate is that there are those who will swear by one media source while swearing that the other media source comes from the (Trek Reference) depths of perdition.
But they are entitled to their opinions, twisted and misguided though they may be.
YeahRight
I mean what ever happen to WWJD. What would Jesus do?
Sorry, for me, the question is WWCKD
"What would Captain Kirk do"??
:D
The problem here is that people all over the spectrum are forgetting that we are ALL Americans first and whatever second.. We have to get past the concept that "everyone who doesn't think like me is an enemy."
Once we get past that then, and ONLY then, will progress be made.
Michale.....
My vote's for calling them teabaggers. It's not nice, but neither are the racist signs and Confederate flags.
Neither is calling legitimate protesters Nazis..
But that doesn't stop the Democratic Party leadership from doing it, eh??
Michale.....
Osborne Ink -
My prediction: the people who use "teabag" as a verb, in its original sexual context, will become embarrassed at those for whom the term is now being used. They will make a public statement changing the sexual connotation to a different term. Heh.
General comment -
...organizers' claims are always suspect, because they are always exaggerated. Always.
You'll all note that doesn't say "from the left" or "from the right." There's a reason for my being so general in this statement. Everyone does it.
Also, I have to say while the Inauguration was not a protest, the numbers were even more impressive because all those people had to wait for HOURS before the event (I waited about 8, myself) in sub-freezing temperatures (I doubt it got much above 30 deg. all day). That makes it even more impressive than any other group which gathers in any other season of the year. Just saying....
Michale -
Better check -- Obama's poll numbers are going back up.
American History Teacher -
Welcome to the site, sorry for the delay in posting your comments (to all -- this delay happens only on your first post, and if you post multiple links in a single comment). Thanks also for verifying that it was indeed the MMM that caused the NPS to give up on crowd estimates -- that's what I thought, but I wasn't sure and didn't have time to look it up (read that as: your humble author is lazy).
While I can't speak to the MSM's coverage this weekend, they did cover it (I briefly saw it), but again, I was distracted and don't know exactly HOW it was covered, so I don't have enough info personally to say anything about it. But you go on to say:
When was the last time that you heard the mainstream media ridicule the opinions expressed by anyone at any protest or political rally of any kind on the left?
Which is just laughable. Lefty protests are portrayed as "crazy hippies in the streets" all the time. Rarely -- in fact, almost NEVER -- is ANY demonstration covered by the media as actual "news" because they are lazy too. And I say that no matter WHAT is being protested. Here is how a true journalist would cover a protest: do a cursory examination of the organizing group beforehand (read their website, takes 5 minutes). Then, the day of the rally, INTERVIEW the LEADERS of the rally, and ask them probing questions about their stances. Allow them to defend their positions. Call them on perceived factual innacuracies or exaggerations. Show a few clips of people speaking from the stage (intelligent clips, not "gotcha" clips). Then and ONLY THEN show the crowd, and interview random people attending the event.
What we get instead is that last step, and none of the ones which should precede it. Doesn't matter if it's anti-war, anti-Bush, or anti-Obama -- the media just flat-out DOES NOT do their job when it comes to protests. The organizers will be HAPPY to grant interviews -- the whole point of the protest is to get their ideas out. But somehow, it is never done this way, no matter if it's left or right. Which is a shame.
I'm a strange one, because although I have an admitted lefty bias, I am even more strongly pro-protest. Both the "gather peaceably" and "petition the government for redress of grievances" parts of the First Amendment are just as sacred to me as the other bits. I even gave unsolicited advice to the tea party folks before their first demonstrations, in a burst of non-partisan approval of protesting in general.
I can't speak to the Alien and Sedition Act, but the Sedition Act was passed during WWI, and the Japanese internment was during WWII. And if you'll hit the "home" button here and search for Schenck v. United States (or just "Schenck"), you'll see what I've had to say about this previouly.
But you also conveniently don't list the PATRIOT ACT (sorry for the all caps, but it's supposed to be an acronym, no emphasis by me was intended). My take on it: In wartime, any president of any party is going to stomp all over the Bill of Rights. It has always been this way, and probably always will be this way. Later, after the crisis is passed, we look back and wonder "how could America have done this"... until the next time it happens. I don't think it's party as much as who is in the White House in times of war.
akadjian/David -
OK, total nonsequiter here - since we're talking about what to call people, I have to ask people who have login names and then sign with their real name, which do you prefer me to use when addressing you in comments? Login? Or your signature? I've never asked this before, so Stan, David, Matt Osborne Ink, etc. -- which is preferred?
You make an EXCELLENT point about the throwing up of hands by both the media and the NPS. Simply excellent. I hadn't connected it before, but you hit the nail on the head -- they both have abdicated for exactly the same reason. I have to think about this some more....
Yeah right -
I mean what ever happen to WWJD. What would Jesus do? Really do you believe that Jesus would say that health care is only for those who could pay for it. I mean he brought a man back to life for free.
Another excellent point -- seems like an above-average thread of comments today!
Michale -
The MSM is slowly picking up on the ACORN story. It's spreading. And isn't it "Van Jones" or am I thinking of a different story?
Sorry, for me, the question is WWCKD
OK, I have to admit that got a laugh out of me. Except Kirk, all too often, let his emotions get the better of him. And you wouldn't want to ask him about whether he had had sex with "that woman," because the answer was usually "yes, you missed it, it was during the commercial break."
Heh.
OK, everyone, gotta get to work on today's column.
-CW
Chris,
Stan is fine.
With regards to your post. I think it is important that the counting of crowd participation in political events be accurate because too many people try to spin the relevance of an issue based on attendance.
Also any reporting should be accurate and factual. If the size of a crowd is misrepresented then that is the same as lying.
...Stan
AHT,
Yer my new hero!! :D
Yer echoing words I have been saying here for years. It seems that Democrat Leaders (such as they are) and the the majority of rank and file Lefties go out of their way to demonize protesters from the Right. Yet they see absolutely NO hypocrisy in embracing their own protesters who are guilty of the exact same kinds of actions.
And you are also correct in another point. You NEVER, EVER, NOT ONCE, saw the Bush Administration try and demonize protesters they way that the Obama Administration and Democratic Leadership has done..
Now, to be fair, in these pages, you will find that there are those who are as embarrassed at their Democrat leaders as they should be. They, with a few exceptions, just don't articulate it well, unless prodded.. :D (ooooooo I am gonna burn for that one! :D)
Glad to see ya on board.. :D
CW
Better check — Obama's poll numbers are going back up.
Really?? Where?? I anxiously await your POLL posting to make comment.. :D
OK, I have to admit that got a laugh out of me. Except Kirk, all too often, let his emotions get the better of him. And you wouldn't want to ask him about whether he had had sex with "that woman," because the answer was usually "yes, you missed it, it was during the commercial break."
I dunno.. Kirk might be loathe to admit that.
Reminds me of a part of SPIN CITY where Michael J Fox was with his girlfriend and was called away to an important meeting.
Carla Guigino: "Can we do it in 5 minutes??"
Michael J Fox: "Well, *I* can."
:D
Michale.....
The MSM is slowly picking up on the ACORN story. It's spreading.
But that's kinda my point.
Why is the Liberal media "slowly" picking up on it? If it had been a conservative orgainization instead of a Democrat one, the media would have been all over it like Stink On Rice..... er.. or is that White on shit??
Anyways, it simply shows how the Media will utterly ignore a story that has everything they live for.
Sex, Scandal, Corruption..
All because they are afraid of offending Democrats.
If that ain't slant, I don't know what is...
And isn't it "Van Jones" or am I thinking of a different story?
His real name is Anthony Jones.
He chose to call himself "Van" because, in his words, it "sounded cooler"...
Typical.... :^/
Michale.....
Michale -
And you are also correct in another point. You NEVER, EVER, NOT ONCE, saw the Bush Administration try and demonize protesters they way that the Obama Administration and Democratic Leadership has done.
No, they just arrested them in clear violation of the First Amendment, for what they had on their T-shirts or bumperstickers. This is after barring them from attending any event with Bush, based on their political loyalty. Given the choice, I'll take the Obama administration's actions.
And, come to think of it, I seem to remember Dick Cheney saying a few choice words about the patriotism of war protesters, but I could be mistaken. It may have just been questioning their patriotism because of what jewelry they did or didn't wear. I certainly haven't heard Obama or Biden denigrate anyone's patriotism lately...
-CW
No, they just arrested them in clear violation of the First Amendment, for what they had on their T-shirts or bumperstickers. This is after barring them from attending any event with Bush, based on their political loyalty. Given the choice, I'll take the Obama administration's actions.
Touche' I'll give you that one...
However, I am constrained to point out that there are many instances of Obama choosing "soft" crowds in his appearances as well..
My point is, I don't recall ever where an Administration actually went after Joe Q Public in the manner that Dem Leaders have gone after Americans these days.
I know that you, personally, feel all (or most) protest is sacred and legitimate. But you have to admit that you are in the minority in that regard, even amongst readers here... And most definitely amongst Democrats in general.
Michale...
Michale, I thought it was funny also WWKC do. The man that boldly went were no man has ever gone before. Hahaha.
@Chris- David is fine. Guess I'm not so good at this alias thing. I'll probably never survive on the Interwebs.
Interesting thoughts on protests.
It's late and I'm thinking out loud through this, but I think what I struggle with about the tea bag protests is that I don't think these protesters would ever leave the house but for the fact that Glenn Beck told them to.
But, I could probably argue this for most movements. Think about MLK for example. So I'm going to set that aside for a minute and move onward.
My next thought is that I typically think of protests as a tool used by those who are in some way being oppressed. Civil rights. Gay rights. Suffrage.
What I don't understand about the tea party protests is, how do they feel oppressed?
And here is where it's unclear. Some protest socialism, some fascism, some fear of taxes, some that they want government to stay out of medicare, some that they hate government, some that don't want money going to illegals. And the list goes on and on.
I don't think even they understand the point they want to make. My local tea party website says they believe in "fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets."
Where were these people during the irresponsible spending of the Iraq War? Where were they when George W. Bush was expanding the powers of government? Where were they when the Bush administration was destroying free markets by not limiting monopolies?
So to me it doesn't seem like they're fighting for a principle. If you're oppressed and you're fighting for a principle you fight for it no matter who is in power. MLK didn't care who was in power, he fought for equal rights.
Overall, I'm for protests. I just want to know what protesters want. Let me put it this way- what could Obama do that would please them? I think the answer is nothing. Glenn Beck would find something new to hate and they'd be right back out there.
Democrats have tried to please conservatives for years by compromising with them. And you know what? No matter how much they compromise, they still get treated the same.
Why not introduce the most socialist, fascist legislation possible? :)
-David
@Yeah Right
Eddie Murphy epitomized Kirk in his stand-up DELERIOUS. I won't post it here as it is rather raw. This was pre-Disney Eddie Murphy at his finest.
Suffice it to say, it had something to do with sex with a "green chick"... :D To be honest, I thought Capt Archer got the best "green chicks" of all the series.. :D
David,
It's late and I'm thinking out loud through this, but I think what I struggle with about the tea bag protests is that I don't think these protesters would ever leave the house but for the fact that Glenn Beck told them to.
That's kinda my point. The unfairness of thoughts like that. Turn it around and you'll see what I mean.
Is it fair to say, "I don't think these protesters would ever leave the house but for the fact that Cindy Sheehan told them to."
Sure, there might be a small minority of protesters on BOTH sides that this would apply to.
But to write off the whole entire protest as "astro-turf" is unfair and politically bigoted.
Overall, I'm for protests. I just want to know what protesters want. Let me put it this way- what could Obama do that would please them?
You answered your own question previously.
Some would be pleased if Obama would quit expanding government. Others would be pleased if Obama would produce his original birth certificate. Still others would be pleased if Obama would strengthen our national borders. And so on and so on and so on.
I don't recall who said it (It might have been your buddy, Beck.. :D) but someone on the Left pointed out that the protests were all leaderless "mobs" who had no direction. Similar to what you are saying.
Isn't that the very epitome of "grass roots"?? Isn't the very definition of "grass roots". Common people at the local level.
I'll ignore the irony of those Dem leaders who complained that the protesters were too nicely dressed and too organized to be a true "grass roots". That hypocrisy speaks for itself.
Democrats have tried to please conservatives for years by compromising with them. And you know what? No matter how much they compromise, they still get treated the same.
The very definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result. :D
So, why don't Democrats go it alone and just do what they want?
Because they realize it would be bad for their country.
The recent euphoria notwithstanding, the USA is still a Center-Right country. This is the problem Democrats are facing in the here and now. They thought that the elections of 2006 and 2008 had moved the country to a Center-Left position.
They were wrong and now they are paying the price for it.
Michale.....
Michale,
The difference between the anti-war protesters and the tea bag party is that the anti-war protesters wanted to end the war. The tea bag party just wants to end Obama. Every now and then they even honestly say that all they want to do is stop Obama and try to get back into power in the next cycle.
Now it's true that the war protests have toned down since Obama came to power, but I think this is largely related to them feeling as if they need to give him a chance.
The tea baggers want Obama out. This is what would make them happy.
Every time he tries to find some common ground with them, they find something else to be angry about.
So why not pay more attention to the 70% of Americans that are willing to work with him?
I think this is the real reason he's hurting in the polls. So completely agree with you that he should ignore those unwilling to compromise. If you're going to scream, why not give 'em something to scream about :)!
As to why they don't go it alone, I think this has more to do with the fact that they need money to win elections and they still play along w/ K Street. So they speak out of one side of their mouth to liberal supporters and another to the K Street lobbyists.
-David
p.s. Glenn Beck is too liberal for my tastes :). He at one point argued for health care reform. I'm looking for a radio jock who thinks the Democrats are going to start putting Republicans in concentration camps. Now there's some "real" fear!
Maybe tea party leader Mark Williams could be this shock jock ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html
Apparently he believes Obama is acting like "an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief."
Chris,
Just Kevin is fine.