This week, the National Journal poll of political bloggers asked a bonus question, about which "columnists, bloggers and television or radio commentators most helped to shape their opinion or worldview." For right-leaning bloggers, the top five were, in order: Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, and Eugene Volokh (!). All hail the Master of the Conspiracy.
On the left, the winners were Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, Frank Rich, Bill Moyers, and
Digby.
As for the regular questions, the first was "How much will Democrats be helped or hurt in the midterm elections if Congress doesn't pass major health care reform legislation?" My answer was "Helped a lot." Over half the Right, but only 6% of the Left, thought that Democrats would be helped even a little.
My answer focused not on Democrats in general, but Democrats in swing districts: "There are plenty of reforms which would cost little and give people more choices -- such as allowing interstate competition in health insurance, or giving Medicare/Medicaid/etc. recipients the option of receiving vouchers to use as they see fit. These reforms would probably be supported by a broad spectrum of voters. However, if 'reform' is defined as federal micromanagement of private insurance, and greater federal intrusion into personal health care choices, then 'reform' will probably be perilous for Democrats in purple or red districts."
The second regular question "How closely should the Republican Party align itself with the Tea Party movement?" A majority of both the Left and the Right voted for at least "somewhat closely." I was among the 50% of the Right who voted for "very closely." As I explained, I would have said the same thing about the Democrats: "The Republicans -- and the Democrats -- should crack down on the institutionalized corruption in their own party, and should work hard to balance the budget, end the kleptocratic redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to politically favored businesses, and sharply reduce federal meddling in people's personal lives. Whichever party does that will earn the support of the Tea Party activists, and the gratitude of generations to come."
Bloggers polls: Health care, Tea parties, and commentators:
Seriously: the latest event was organized by a corporate lobbyist who indirectly waves babies in order to support illegal activity: youtube.com/watch?v=gaqd1qY1KsM
And, instead of encouraging their charges to go to meetings and "interrogate" politicians over their flawed proposals, the TP leaders just encouraged people to act out and put on emotional displays. That was somewhat effective, but it's also one more step on the road to Idiocracy.
P.S. As another sign of those leaders' incompetence, right from the very start they've limited their target market by concentrating on taxes and by having an underlying Randroid philosophy.
This must be satire. There is no other explanation.
I agree completely with EV-- the Democrats will be helped if the health care (isn't "sick care" a more accurate term?) reform fails. If somehow it passes the public will go ballistic and unleash a rein of terror on the Democrats in Congress. The Republicans best distance themselves from the whole thing. Never in my life have I seen the conservatives so energized. These normally apathetic rubes are taking to the streets. I have never ever seen a demonstration in my neighborhood-- even by liberals. But now I see crowds demonstrating against Obamacare. On the other side of the bay, in Silicon Valley, Republican functions are now well attended after years of apathy. It seems as if a sleeping giant has awakened.
I disagree. Despite the noise from the Tea Parties, half of the country approves of the president and a majority want something done. The Democrats didn't pass health care in 1994 and they weren't rewarded. Loss on healthcare will simply embolden the right and result in one long filibuster of everything until the 2010 elections. Sixty (or 59) votes and they can't fulfill a campaign promise- why would anyone vote for them?
On the other hand, the more enraged the tea partiers get, the worse it will be for Republicans to be associated with them. The people waving around the Hitler mustache and hammer-and-sickle signs are overwhelmingly old and overwhelmingly white. A lot of their rage comes from seeing their utter irrellavence in the last election; the "silent majority" of the 60s-80s is a minority now. Most people, even those with serious reservations about healthcare resolutions, aren't taking to the street. The rage is concentrated and being blown out of proportion by a media that wants conflict above all else.
So uh, Republicans, I think this explains quite a bit about the reality of 2009.
Instead of working to convert us Democratic Jews to becoming Republican ourselves, you have quite a bit of your own work to do....
Wow, is that scary (except for EV, of course, but even there he came in fifth).
I guess the silver lining is that people have to stop claiming that Limbaugh is really not influential.
Do you have any evidence in favor of this theory, or are you just projecting your beliefs onto the voters?
Even if people turn out to dislike the health care plan once it comes into effect (doubtful), most of its provisions would not come into effect for several years. In October 2010, Republicans could try to generate backlash against the health care plan through histrionics about its supposedly horrible future effects, but I don't think this is likely to work.
A classic opposition strategy is to use obstructionist tactics to prevent the party in power from enacting its agenda, and then run against a majority that has supposedly "done nothing." The fact that the opposition is itself responsible for the inaction does not prevent this strategy from working. Thus the failure of the healthcare bill (if the Republicans succeed in blocking it) is likely to help the GOP in the midterms.
On the topic of the post itself, this is essentially equivalent to stating that the party which attracts Ron Paul's supporters into its coalition holds the keys to electoral dominance. If tea-party fans didn't have a tendency to wildly overestimate the number of people who share their positions, no one would have thought for a minute that there might have been 2 million attendees at last weekend's rally.
He's certainly no worse than the Murderers Row of Maddow, Moyers, and Rich.
And, I'm not "mocking" the TPers themselves in the way that "liberals" and low-level elitist libertarian hacks are. I'm pointing out how their leaders are grossly incompetent. If they weren't incompetent, they'd have an answer to racists like "rj" above and an answer to videos like the one at the first link in this comment.
I don't agree with you very often, but I must commend you in being intellectually honest about the tea party folks who are ostensibly on your side of the political fence.
The point is that this demographic group has been pandered to as the electoral holy grail for decades. Now, the "silent majority" of '68 or "Reagan Democrats" of '80 or "Angry White Males" of '94 have been shown that their influence is waning and numbers are declining. That's a discomfiting thing, especially after being told that they alone constituted the "real America." It turns out that the real America is a lot larger than them, and it scares them.
Tea Partiers are loud, but they weren't able to amass as many people on the National Mall than the Washington Redskins do out in the 'burbs at every home game. Their children are far more likely to be embarrassed than inspired by the accusations they scream and the signs they wave.
P.S. Another chapter of that same group is presented as mainstream by SoniaS's old group here: lideres.nclr.org/content/article/detail/1743
Does this mean that everyone who goes to these things is a potential Timothy McVeigh? Of course not! It does mean that there is a real risk that some guy who actually believes that we are in the midst of a communist revolution with internment camps and thought police will do something really, really dumb.
Electorally, that isn't my worry. The midterms will rise and fall on the economy.
Everybody has a crazy uncle who forwards bizarre conspiratorial emails. Getting them all on the same lawn at the same time doesn't make them a majority.
The only violence being perpetrated is by those brought in by the Democrats.
Many of the teapartiers do appear to be oddballs. Those who protest for either side tend to be excitable types. At this time, however, public opinion favors the protestors rather than those who wish to silence them.
This isn't to belittle NASCAR or camping or the rest, but to recognize that the decades of pandering to this demographic is coming to an end and the formerly pandered-to are none too happy about it. Tea parties are not about policy, which is why most of the signs are simply attacks on Obama as a person, they are the death-yelp of a waning era.
1) Who said anything about silencing them. I'm for ignoring them. Big difference.
2) They don't have the public's side. Obama's job approval is hanging on to the high side of 50. Depending on how the question is framed, support for health care legislation jumps back and forth over the 50 percent threshold.
3) Violence by those brought in by the Democrats? And I suppose the most reprehensible signs came from Democratic plants too? You will probably refer to Ken Gladney, merch-seller turned "activist" because his huckster lawyer saw an opportunity (see link).
4) We've already had the guy in Pittsburgh who shot those three cops because he thought they were coming for his guns and the Holocaust Museum shooter (avowed birther).
No it doesn't. It's been at least a month since I've seen any poll asking about anything even remotely being concretely proposed that has found 50% support. I'm sure if you ask "Do you think there should be health care reform?" and nothing else you'll get a majority, but that's about it. Might as well ask "Do you support changes in American foreign policy?" for proof that the public wants to invade Canada.
You have no claim on the violent rhetoric front after the last six years. I know you guys know this. Pelosi literally cried because she's not getting her way, embodying the rest of this nonsense that's being charged. It's a tantrum from people who have no leg to stand on, and a president who has no idea what to do when someone stands up to him. He is lost right now, and you know it.
I'm Steve, just like you're 24Ahead.
Keep dreaming about that. This soon-to-be tea partier is a Jew. I don't camp or go to NASCAR either, but I hate big government. I have never protested in my life, but you lefties have gone too far this time.
"Despite the noise from the Tea Parties, half of the country approves of the president and a majority want something done."
You bring up a lot of points, and while I can respond to everyone of them, I'm going to concentrate on the degree of public support for health care reform. I highly recommend you listen to Stanford Professor of Sociology David Brady's podcast on EconTalk here. The polls that indicate support for Obamacare don't ask the right questions, and are extremely deceptive. It turns that once costs are factored into the questions support collapses. You can read summaries on the same page. From the summary:Not only that people are generally happy with the status quo.More specifically
Please take the time to listen or read all the summaries, and I think you will see why health care reform is likely to fail unless somehow the government crams it down our throat. If they do that, the blow back in 2010 will be spectacular.
My time is limited today because I'm going to Rosh Hashanah services tonight, so I can't make any more posts for today.
OK, enough of this, I have services too.
This is quite wrong. What happened in 2008, as in 1992, is that significant numbers of white working and middle class voters thought (correctly) that the economy was doing badly, and switched their vote from R to D to punish the party in power. If the economy isn't doing better by 2010, they'll switch right back. I can't imagine a party being dumb enough to write off a demographic group (white people over 30) that constitutes an absolute majority of the country. In fact, I doubt that the Democratic leadership is that dumb, though evidently some of their voters are.
BS. I'm a die-hard conservative and I'll go on record as saying as saying I'll vote for every Democrat if I thought for an instant they were ever even attempting to do most of that.
The problem with your over-the-top hypothetical is that in order to do that, they'd have to start standing for conservative principles. They sure as hell aren't going to even get close by going in the current direction.
Cheers,
Sorry Nancy, but think things through next time.
But if elections were held today, while Obama might squeak through (as noted, his job approval ratings, while continuing to head down, are still above 50%), many of the Democrats in the House sitting in swing districts would likely not be so lucky. Maybe not enough yet to take Pelosi's jet away from her, but closer every month.
The big thing that would kill the Democrats today if there were Congressional elections is passion. Obama and the Democrats won last November because their base was far more fired up than their opponents were. It is just the opposite today. There are a lot of people who would crawl over hot coals to vote the bums out, while the Democrats are resorting to paid (through political favors) union thugs to counter the health care opponents, after failing miserably to get their net crazies energized.
But I might vote for them if they somehow did something good, which they will never do, so I will never vote for them.
My life is so nice and simple.
I'm a 36-year-old woman, a card-carrying ACLU member, I live in San Francisco, I protested against the Iraq War, I have undergraduate and graduate degrees from Yale and Harvard, and I'm going to a Tea Party in Sacramento.
Dave Kopel is right — whoever can "crack down on the institutionalized corruption in their own party... work hard to balance the budget, end the kleptocratic redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to politically favored businesses, and sharply reduce federal meddling in people's personal lives" will have the enduring gratitude and support of Americans for generations.
This is the popular undercurrent captured by the Tea Party movement. Attempts to mock it as a racist, neo-Confederate, rear-guard action by a bunch of gun-crazed, ill-bred, aging white guys is needlessly polarizing the country. It's also leading to a long-term electoral disaster for the Democratic Party — not unlike the one caused by Jimmy Carter.
Apparently, many of you would also be surprised to know who goes camping (and hunting!) these days. NASCAR, on the other hand, is an acquired taste...
If you think the Glenn Beck tea parties are about stopping corporate kleptocracy (you know, like for-profit health insurance companies?), you've got another think coming. Here's some poop on Glenn Beck.
As for who's there, try this. More here.
<*sniff-sniff*> Do I smell a "concern troll"?
Cheers,
Sure, Glen Beck is nothing but a pandering entertainer.
But the popular undercurrent — or grass-roots — nature of the Tea Parties has nothing to do with cable TV personalities, ex-congressmen or corporate PACs. Most people attending Tea Parties could care less about what these people think.
Slinging derogatory epithets at people you don't understand or disagree with is pretty narrow-mined behavior. Sort of like calling professional women "girls", or sincere commenters "trolls".
-- A court decision which zeroed out the stocks of thousands of stockholders of GM and Chrysler...only to have the unions put at the front of the line for Chapter 11 purposes;
-- 32 unelected "czars";
-- Bailouts and/or outright takeovers of some of the larger financial and stock institutions AND two of the Big Three automakers;
-- Cap and trade;
-- the second ($787 billion) stimulus bill;
-- Congress members who admit that they did't read bills before voting on them (!);
-- Disrespect by Congress members to constituents in town hall meetings that THE CONGRESS MEMBERS organized, such as calling constituents names; talking on cell phones and Blackberrys while being asked questions, or not even organizing town hall meetings in their districts.
-- And, even simple arrogance by Congress members (i.e complaining about corporate jet travel by executives while trying to get $$$ to buy....corporate jets for the Congresspeople; claiming that they are the "only thing that stands between them and the pitchforks"; etc.)
This is NOT about racism, race, "code words", or even one party; this looks more like it does cross party, generational, gender, political belief, and all other lines; they may not agree on a whole lot, but when you start getting 55-60% against the health plan, it ain't just Republicans, conservatives, or the so-called "right wing" anymore. People are frustrated, worried, and angry--the townhalls proved that--and they don't need a specific leader or lead group to get them out to a meeting; they just need to know WHERE and WHEN, and can they get their question answered (either their own or listening to someone else who has a similar question). [On that part I agree with San Francisco Liberal and SSD above.]
As for "San Francisco Liberal", tell me another one. Then again, she might for real and in good company: the ACLU is collaborating with a foreign government in a scheme that would help that foreign government make money from illegal activity inside the U.S. Would DickArmey even go that far? Well, the company that used to employ him included several RFA's and did work for that same government so you never know.
See the links I've left above for much more about this issue.
Did Kopel even look at polls? The Dem proposed reforms are being supported by the majority of the population--it's just hard to see that because of TV coverage of teabaggers (or if you watch only Fox News). The problem is not the reform ideas that Dems have--the problem is that, so far, the independents would strongly prefer (by about 2:1) if Republicans were included on the shaping of the reform. This is bad for Dems, but not because they have not been trying to negotiate a compromise--no matter what they put out, all but one (in the most extreme case--two) Republicans will vote against the package. In other words, no matter how much Dems reach out across the isle, there is not going to be a bipartisan reform bill unless they agree to drop all of their proposals and replace them with nearly all Republican ones. This is the dictatorship of the minority that many political philosophers have always been afraid of in a democratic system. Of course, they often counted on rational minority--not a case like this one.
So the Dems will be helped not if they fail to pass the reform but if they do pass it and shift the blame for lack of bipartisanship on Republicans. It's not an easy task when most news organizations are out to lunch, but it is possible that they will pull it off. However, if they fail to pass the signature reform, it will be a slaughter at the polls in 2010. They would have had a dominant majority and failed to move an inch. Although the reasons for this would be 1) total obstructionism on the Right and 2) greater diversity within the party than Republicans could ever hope for (Blue Dogs basically refusing party discipline and striking out on their own). Both of these should favor Dems, but that would be assuming rational voters. That's a bet one will always lose.
"My life is so nice and simple."
You forgot to turn on your non-sarcastic tag for that one. I voted for seven Democrats at the last election, have done so before, and likely will again. I'm still behind Obama but would like to see how he does with a Republican Congress, as our last Democratic President did pretty well in that situation.
And ~aadvark, your fidelity to the catechism is truly touching. Get back to me when meaningful tort reform, relaxing state-line restrictions, and a true catastrophic-only option are part of the bill, and when the jihad against HSA's is called off.
Can a bill pass in the current congress without such things? Sure can. Good luck retaining congress with it. Republicans have nothing to do with that reality.
"I don't agree with you very often, but I must commend you in being intellectually honest about the tea party folks who are ostensibly on your side of the political fence."
When the evil aspies start singing my tune, my first reaction is to check my pitch. If you haven't noticed, there's one guy on 24ahead's side of the political fence, and I sincerely hope that you're not that guy.
To look at it another way, for a guy as attuned to what is popular as you have been, I don't think the contrarian side is the place you really want to be, and 24ahead is, without fail, contrarian. It kind of goes with the whole mad scientist territory.
Did it ever annoy you that the crazies sucked up all (or a great deal of) the coverage of the anti-war marches? Did that strike you as an accurate portrayal of what got all those people out there?
Now those marches were organized by ANSWER, an organization I happen to trust far less than, say, FreedomWorks. I understand that we differ on that point (although that difference might be something for one who considers oneself a liberal to ponder), but did you believe that ANSWER had much to do with why those people were out there either?
If you're not paying attention to what dissenting voices have to say about the march, why not?
I noticed how you listed right-wing talking points--many of which are factually incorrect and others of which ignore realities. Then you conclude unilaterally that these right-wing talking points cut across all party and political lines. Magic, and no proof needed.
I imagine that if anyone polled the people at the 912 rally about who they voted for in 2008, the results would look something like:
McCainPalin: 91%Obama: 1%
Other/Non voter: 8% (collection of Ron Paulbots, Constitution Party, Libertarian, and conservatives who stayed home)
If the most popular individuals at Tea Parties are Sarah Palin, Joe Wilson, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin, that pretty much pegs the movement as strictly right-wing.
Frankly, the outrage I feel right now is over the mindless, inaccurate, and dishonest talking points of right-wing critics and their refusal to actually try and solve any problems rather than playing partisan games. That, and the weak-kneed response of Congress and Obama to all of it.
Thanks for sharing the ruminations of your imagination. Facts would likely be of more use in a public forum, however. I wasn't at the D.C. rally, but this Obama-voter has been to a couple TP's so far and I'm generally in sympathy with the concerns expressed there.
But I have to admit to being somewhat dissatisfied with the Obama Presidency. First, there should be no taxation without representation; does Obama think he is some kind of king? You know, King George didn't listen either. Second, I'm concerned about all the Czars that the President has appointed. I don't want my country to turn into Russia.
So yes, I am a proud Tea Partier. Don't write us all off as right-wing kooks.
"I imagine that if anyone polled the people at the 912 rally about who they voted for in 2008,..."
You have to do more than imagine. How about some facts about the people who attended the 9/12 Washington DC demonstration? We see that a lot of Obama voters are having buyer's regret from his plummeting approval ratings. You can't automatically assume that over 90% of the attendees voted for McCain. It's possible, but you have to provide some evidence beyond your speculations before we can take your assertions seriously.
argh.
steretypes = stereotypes
No survey evidence, but we do have a lot of anecdotal evidence.
1. Sponsors: Conservative advocacy groups + Fox News
2. Speakers: All conservatives
3. Cheers for: Sarah Palin and Joe Wilson
4. Boos for: All Democrats
5. Signs: Equating Obama and Democrats with socialists, Nazis, and communists. Signs I've seen criticizing Republicans: zero.
Anecdotal evidence, yes. But the only evidence we have so far points to these being conservative events attended by conservatives who will not support Democrats and liberals no matter what. There is pretty much zero evidence that these protests are spread broadly in political views.
NBC reporters at the envent pegged it at the "hundreds of thousands". Take at look at this
picture
and tell me it is only 70,000.
Reports also have it that this was the most polite "angry" crowd that also picked up all the trash after itself that DC has ever seen. All those "Obama=Hitler" signs? Um... does the name Lyndon LaRouche ring a bell? The vast majority of signs (and I watched the even via streaming video) were NON-partisan, aimed mostly at Congress and the overwhelming sentiment was stop stealing all our earnings and our kids earnings and telling us it is for "our own good". It is the arrogance of people like Dem. Baron Hill who sneered at his own constituents "you don't get to tell me how to run my Congressional office" that has people who have never marched for anything come out of their homes.
I attended a Tea Party back on April 15 in Rancho Cucamonga...purely "organized" via email (no permit, no speakers). Close to 3,000 people turned out. I walked the crowds talking to families, individuals and most were people who pretty much ignore politics save for election time. But the bailouts and the "stimulus" and the huge URGENCY of the Democrats in pushing a statist agenda caused them alarm.
Marginalize them if you will. I rarely expect anymore intellectual honesty from people who consider themselves superior to the hoi poloi.
Thanks for the video confirming that this is a conservative phenomenon.
Darleen,
Yes, that photo you linked shows about 70,000 people. Here's a photo of LSU stadium, which holds 92,000. The people in your DC photo could easily fit into the LSU stands.
Photo
Furthermore, the DC metro system showed a very small ~70k rise in ridership, and the traffic was not much worse than a typical Saturday.
Obviously you didn't pan to the right/heft nor are familiar with USA Today's graphic from Obama's inauguration that would peg the DC Tea Party crowd at minimum 250,000.
And what makes you think that most of the people going to that march came via the DC metro station.
So what if this is mostly a center right movement. That country is majority center-right. But yes, continue to be dishonest that this is nothing but a bunch of lizard brain people who must be taken care of by the superior Leftists who micromanage their lives down to the light bulbs in their homes and how they will be required to separate their trash and HEAVEN FORFEND they cannot be trusted to buy handmade or second-hand toys for their children. Liberty and personal responsibility are SO over-rated, eh?
If the Dems fail to enact Obamacare as they failed to enact Hillarycare, it will not save them in 2010 any more than it did in 1994. The Dems have spent months tying themselves to Obamacare and cannot suddenly escape those bonds by failing to pass their preferred program. The conservative GOP and Indis are energized and will not be mollified. Failure to enact Obamacare might depress turnout on the left, but then again most supporters of single payer are in safe Dem districts and should not affect the 84 Blue Dogs in districts carried by Bush and/or McCain. Under this scenario, it is probably even money whether the House goes GOP.
If the Dems manage to muster majorities (which they currently do not have) to ram Obamacare through using reconciliation, the conservative GOP and Indis will go completely nuts and the House will go GOP for sure.
In an essay for National Journal, liberal political analyst Ronald Brownstein describes how the Rocky Mountain West GOP is energized and the Indis are turning against Obama and the Dems for portraying themselves as moderates during the election and then governing from the hard left as soon as they get into office. Brownstein rattles off several Dem gains over the past two cycles that are in danger out here.
If the GOP is at all smart (a quality that cannot be assumed), they will get back to their Reagan conservative roots and attach themselves at the hip to the Tea Party movement - largest libertarian conservative political rebellion since the Revolution.
In case you hadn't noticed, that is a graphic of the mall, not the 912 tea party. The tea party did not fill in all the shaded areas of the "240,000" area since they were not on the mall at all and their stage was significantly forward of the Capitol Building. (The USA today 240,000 includes a stage on the Capitol steps and the crowd filling the lawn. On 9/12, the stage was down on the lawn.) These pictures show the stage and roped off area eating up a substantial part of the lawn.
Photo
Photo
Here's the really jam packed crowd around the Grant memorial pool, which is a little less than halfway back in your "240,000" section.
Photo
Photo
Y'all should be happy with 70,000. That's a good crowd. Almost as many as a college football game.
"Cornet,
Thanks for the video confirming that this is a conservative phenomenon."
Um, you are aware that your majority depends on the support of conservative Democrats? Right? Newnan? How many of the people interviewed in the video would admit to being Republicans? Why do you think that might be?
You are aware that a substantial number of people voted out the GOP in 2006/08 because of concern over their profligate spending, right? Do you imagine that your majority is now so large that you can afford to piss them off even more than the R's did?
Bart,
"If the GOP is at all smart (a quality that cannot be assumed), they will get back to their Reagan conservative roots and attach themselves at the hip to the Tea Party movement - largest libertarian conservative political rebellion since the Revolution."
Well, that's the thing. Based on the evidence of this thread, the only saving grace for the R's is that hardcore D supporters seem bound and determined to make libertarians and conservatives forget just how far the R's strayed from those roots under Rove and friends.
As for ridership figures, can you point me to a link that debunks this?
Dum dum dum dum...
I hated ANSWER. I don't want to free Mumia (and it always seemed like people were standing up and calling to free Mumia at those rallies). And I frankly think they discredited the anti-war movement when what we really need was marches by the large number of anti-war liberals who WERE NOT Trotskyites.
It's refuted right in the comments. Heritage chose to compare 9/12/09 to 9/6/08, which is a bizarre choice. Why not 9/13/09, which was also a Saturday? The reason Heritage chose the 9/6/08 for comparison is because ridership was way down that day from Tropical Storm Hannah hitting Washington, DC. Here are some other DC metro ridership figures.
2008:
8/30: 335,945
9/06: 202,528 (Tropical Storm Hannah)
9/13: 362,773
2009:
9/05: 300,063
9/12: 437,624
For extra comparison,
Monday 9/14, 704,000
So, there was a bump on 9/12 of somewhere between 75,000 and 137,000 extra Metro trips. Factor in a round trip for each person and you get 37,500 to 68,500 extra riders. And that also would include anyone coming to the National Black Family Reunion on the Mall.
Good question!
Thanks, that was what I was looking for. Any info on the flag at half-staff time lapse pics?
LN,
Yeah, no kidding. Hence the disinclination of the marchers to call themselves Republican. These people helped elect our current President and Congress, if by nothing else than not voting R. Where's the love?
See also.
"And I frankly think they discredited the anti-war movement when what we really need was marches by the large number of anti-war liberals who WERE NOT Trotskyites."
Wasn't that in fact what we had? Didn't those anti-war liberals indeed swing a couple elections their way? Sure, ideologues on the Right saw what they wanted to see - the Trotskyites. How did that work out for them? You really want to follow that example?
Wow.
Not only do you claim that these "birfers" are so rabid they want the country to go down the tubes, but that they think that what the Dems are doing is going to succeed in that utopian scenario you postulate.
I would contend that it is the opposite, that they think that the Dems are going to ruin what is left of this economy by going down the present path.
Let's turn your inane hypothetical around - if Bush had done all those things, would you have stopped calling him Adolph for even one second?
"Let's turn your inane hypothetical around - if Bush had done all those things, would you have stopped calling him Adolph for even one second?"
After he stopped beating his wife, no doubt. Geo, you just can't do that. Zuch, for all his frequent vapidity, has more sense than to compare Bush to Hitler. You can't take the worst behavior of an entire class of people, then assume that each member of that class engages in such behavior. To do so puts you in the same category as those you decry.
The time lapse march picture of the march down Pennsylvania Street is real. The problem is, too many conservative sites are comparing that to the mall. Pennsylvania avenue is much more narrow than the Mall. There is also the additional factor that moving crowds spread out much further than stationary crowds. Examples of wide space between people on 9/12 in the march down Pennsylvania Avenue:
Photo1
Photo2
The time lapse photo does not show the big gaps and the empty sidewalks because the camera is too low res and too far away.
The whole thing amuses me, which is why I continue to follow it.
"70,000 white conservative birthers"
Dehumanize much?
When the March for Life (100,000 or so) marches down PA Avenue, it takes us about an hour.
Do the math.
As for the DC Metro ridership: first of all, the supermajority of people came in via bus or car. These aren't college kids who crashed on their friend's couch; these are adults who drove with their families or organised buses.
Now, as for your little canard about "The reason Heritage chose the 9/6/08 for comparison is because ridership was way down that day from Tropical Storm Hannah hitting Washington, DC."
Aside from the charming fact that your ridership figures included, um, Labor Day weekend and a workday as a comparison, there's nothing wrong with using the past year (with Hanna). Hanna officially dissipated entirely on 07 September, so it's not like some fearsome storm was hanging over DC. Moreover, the 912 weather wasn't fantastic, either; in fact, IIRC, there are no satellite images of the crowd precisely because of the gloom.
Finally, as for the Black Family Reunion issue: shouldn't it be easy to tell, via picture, who is there for the racist celebration and who is there for the Black Family celebration? I mean, y'all tell us that the Tea Parties are full of old white guys, so a simple ratio of old white guys to black family members ought to suffice.
/deadpan
The fact that you think these two days comparable speaks volumes of your inability to seek the truth.
9/6/08: 40 mph winds, 8 inches of rain, Tropical Storm Warning
9/12/08: 3-4 mph winds, no rain, partly cloudy, 75F high.
Indeed, the day before Hanna hit city officials warned people not to come into Washington, DC because they feared the city might have to shut down all transportation due to unsafe conditions.Link
But other than that, the days are exactly alike and therefore fairly comparable.
And if hundreds of thousands of people came by bus and car, they must have used magic invisible vehicles, because traffic wasn't much worse than a typical Saturday.
Hmm. Perhaps your way of describing the 'liberals' might help you answer your question.
Or maybe pro-life groups-- who have a history of dishonesty and of overstating their popularity-- don't draw the crowds they say they do.
(1) Either the movement continues and grows to the point where the Angus's will be forced to take notice, and we make our own Velvet Revolution, or it will dissipate and it won't matter how many people showed up the one time. If you're sympathetic but worried (happy?) that the protesters were too amateurish/sidetracked then get out there and do it better!
(2) It's unclear that these people are enemies of Angus', Dilan's, et. al.'s professed aspirations, or even of their preferred means for achieving them. If the lion's share of funds going to the federal government currently go directly into the paychecks of an army of Linda Tripps; the SS checks of rich, white, retirees and/or their end-of-life care bills; or Chinese investors, why should the Left continue to clamor for money to be sent that direction instead of embracing a Jeffersonian limited-government movement that might as an added bonus prevent future foreign wars and the attendant abuses of civil liberties? Do you imagine that George Washington would have invaded Iraq? Why are these people your enemies again, to the point of dehumanization?
There are horse trades to be made here for those who haven't been divided and thus conquered.
I thanked you because it helps me get a sense of the truth to get people from conflicting perspectives together to try to hash it out, sort of like our courtrooms do. Liberal concept - might want to try it sometime.
Got racist?
Yours'.
Considering that hers' came first, that doesn't remind me much of the behavior of most truth seekers I've known. YMMV.
But at least you'll be amused. So there's that.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.