« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

OUR WONDERFUL PRESIDENT

By: UpLateAgain (Diary)  |  September 12th, 2009 at 01:18 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’m looking at the pictures on Fox news right now of over 60,000 people gathered at the capital, specifically to protest and address Obama’s assorted policies and attempts to remake our form of governance.  Some say over 100,000.  Where’s our president?  Cowering in Minnesota.  He knew this was coming, and he felt the need to find an excuse to get out of town, from where he can later deny any relevance to the gathering.  He didn’t even have the guts that even Barney Frank and Benedict Arlen showed in facing hostile town hall meetings.

OUR PRESIDENT IS A COWARD!

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • clowngirl

    He doesn’t have any problem whatsoever with continually further alienating those who disagree with him. Where this will hurt him – aside from assuring continued determination to stop him – is that it will also turn off those who aren’t quite sure if they support him or not.

    • Ausonius

      The nose seems eternally at a 45 degree angle, the squinting eyes full of disdain, and the mouth looks like an unlucky horseshoe.

      This is the ideologue extraordinaire, above the rabble, above those who have not gone to the right schools or rubbed cocktails with the liberal elite (I will avoid the obvious joke there). :)

      Arrogant ideologues who do not allow themselves to hear contradictions have occasionally gone happily to the grave with no retribution (Stalin and Mao come to mind). The majority pay a price.

      Let us hope NObama is part of that majority!

      • UpLateAgain

        I have been convinced for a long time that Obama never intended to be anything but a one term President….. Hit and Run on as much socialism as he can garner, take that life-long full income retirement, and spend the rest of his life giving quarter-million dollar speeches.

        He doesn’t have the stomach for contradiction or confrontation, and he’s going to get plenty of it before this term is through.

        • clowngirl

          I’ve thought that at times. The elected Democrats in general seem more interested in trying to hold their power by force than by persuasion but I think Obama is probably finding that being President is a lot tougher than he thought.

          His arrogance is probably so huge he probably expected his approval rating to still be in the 60s right now – if not higher!

          Look how angry he seems lately, how frustrated he is that things haven’t gone his way. He was arrogant enough to think he could waste political capital on the porkulus and still pass Obamacare AND Cap ‘n Tax.

          He underestimated the American people. He still underestimates the American people. As Rich Lowry put it – he must think we’re contemptibly stupid (to fall for all this nonsense)

          • Common_Cents

            Now he is getting a little backlash he is growing more defiant. Don’t you know who I am?

            He really isn’t getting an angrier LATELY. Take a look at his Prez victory speech in Chicago. Full of anger and revenge.

            The arrOgant in Chief

        • nessa

          …the libs immediate payoffs to unions (card check, special provisions in healthcare, etc), ACORN (billions in the porkulus, additional work for the census, additional work/responsibilities in Obamacare), attacks on Free Speech (hate crimes legislation, fairness doctrine, etc), control of banking and industry combined with the ever loyal entitlement base the libs have created over the years and he had the opportunity to do much more than that.

          Call me a conspiracy theorist but IMHO his opposition to Honduras is a tell, a harbinger of things to come, or at least things he had hoped for before the brewing revolution began to heat up.

          • mbecker908

            At least he’s not planning it that way.

            We are way too optimistic about 2010 right now. The Democrats play-to-win. Republicans – and clowngirl is the poster child for this – just want to get along and appeal to people. If we don’t get some leadership that doesn’t have our historical aversion to bloodletting (see Bush41/43, Dole, McCain, etal) we just might lose seats in 2010.

            And then there’s 2012. Being an incumbent is probably worth at least 3 to 5 points off the top. If BO is able to pass his signature legislation – and there’s no reason he won’t – he will mop the floor with anybody currently on the national scene, including and especially Palin.

          • SteveLA

            mbecker

            This talk about one term for Dear Leader Obama is rather, what shall we say premature? Especially if you look at modern history.

            Carter, one term and went down to Reagan.

            Bush Sr., one term and went down to Slick Willy.

            You can argue all you want that Dear Leader Obama is wrong on just about everything, and I’d agree all day, but without someone who is powerfully speaking to the American people about a different direction, one term not going to happen.

            Right now, I don’t see anyone on the horizon who is speaking to the American people in a way that lays out a different direction than the mess that Dear Leader Obama is getting this country into. Tell me, who on the Republican side is going to step up and tell people here’s the direction we should be going then I’ll have hope that maybe we’ll only have Dear Leader for one term.

          • http://www.conservative-compendium.com BrianGarst

            nt

          • SteveLA

            Brian

            Maybe, but where’s his soap box? A sitting member of Congress is a bit constrained by leadership and I don’t see Boehner letting Pence have that much of chance at the microphone. Maybe I am wrong, but getting out there speaking to the issues is part of the deal and Pence in practical terms has some built in challenges to his speaking out on the issues, as long as he’s in Congress and no I’m not suggesting that he step down.

            I’m not even sure about the modern history of some moving from the House to the Big House, Senate yes, House no.

          • izoneguy
          • SteveLA

            izone

            You’ll get little argument out of me on the poster, but I don’t think just that message will make Dear Leader Obama a one term President.

          • Flagstaff

            A perfect description of the campaign claim–Uplifting Administration and the actual result–Separating and Dividing the American people.

          • http://www.conservative-compendium.com BrianGarst

            I don’t think it’s happened since the 19th century, if then. Usually House members move to the Senate first before going for President.

            It might be wishful thinking, but I think technology like youtube gives house members a bit more opportunity to have a soap box. I’ve seen Pence at two major conservative events now (CPAC and 912) and he was, outside of Limbaugh at CPAC, arguably the best speaker at both.

          • UpLateAgain

            Had it from jump street. When Hillary caved and was given Secretary of State, I thought then that a deal had been made and Obama was going to concede what would have been his second term to her. And everything I’ve seen since he was sworn in does nothing to relieve that impression.

            I watched a Carter White House adviser on Hannity the other day say it took them six months to learn where to find the bathrooms….. Obama came in with a fully prepared and ready to execute plan of attack, to include several thousand-page plus bills that HAD to be passed immediately or the world would end.

            My innate Spidey sense tells me there’s more afoot here than meets the eye, and Obama’s just the hawker. That’s his forte, and it is ALL he’s doing.

          • mbecker908

            a one term wonder.

            Steve, I absolutely agree that we’ve got nobody who can touch him right now. Which, of course, is what I said above and it just didn’t make any freaking sense given my oppsie title.

          • clowngirl

            not gonna happen though. :) (probably why he looks so mad)

          • mbecker908

            First you think he had a plan to be a one-term President and now you think he’ like to be de facto dictator.

            And I’m sure you see no divergence in those posts.

          • clowngirl

            The thought that Obama may have gone into office not even planning to run for a second term has crossed my mind but is not my considered opinion. I think he had/has an unrealistic view of his abilities and he (ideally) would want to expand the powers of his “presidency” until he is basically a dictator and make some change in the laws so that he never leaves power. I don’t think he would accomplish that- however, I do agree that he is expanding government power as fast as he possibly can – and so I see where ULA is coming from. He does seem willing to compromise his re-election chances in order to shove his agenda down our throats.

            ok, really logging off now.

            CG

            PS: Becker. you’re responding to all my posts this morning – I almost think I’m starting to grow on you.

            Almost.

          • mbecker908

            And they need to be burned off. As I noted the last time around, you are an idiot. My opinion hasn’t changed. And, it’s worth noting that you should sue whatever school gave you a degree.

            He’s not compromising his reelection by forcing his agenda. He’s ensuring it. You still don’t have a freaking clue about winning do you.

          • UpLateAgain

            I’m not sure who’s really pulling the strings, but I’m pretty sure it’s not our Prez. He’s been in office what…. 200 days? And he’s given over 235 speeches. All he does is campaign. He doesn’t have time to govern.

            And you’re right. All this was ready to be put in place before-hand. It’s not just chance that Jeff Jones, one of the founders of the Weathermen (along with William Ayers) is on the Board of Directors of The Apollo Project (the group that wrote the stimulus package) according to Glenn Beck.

            Nor does the firing of people like Van Jones make those people go away. It only drops them back out of sight into the miasma that is pushing this socialist/ fascist agenda.

      • clowngirl

        Here’s to Obama being a one term wonder who’s party loses the House after the first mid-term election!

    • UpLateAgain

      The mans doesn’t govern…. he campaigns. So it stands to reason that he wouldn’t worry about what the opposition is thinking or whom he is alienating.

      The official count on Fox yesterday was 60,000 at the 9-12 rally. Capitol Police estimated as high as 1.5 million from what I heard, and looking at the pictures of people shoulder-to-shoulder all the way from the Capitol Steps to past the Washington Monument I believe it.

      These, in the majority, are people ready to throw out not just Obama but half or Congress…. and probably half of them would gladly throw out ALL of Congress given the opportunity. We are more divided in this country now than we have been at any time during my lifetime, and the gap is widening. There’s really no middle ground.

      Fortunately, I see more and more people choosing our side over theirs.

      • clowngirl

        plenty of people open to persuasion….

        • mbecker908

          1. The Republican Party quit standing for anything shortly after B41got elected.
          2. There was a flash of brilliance in ’94 – see Newt – that had nothing to do with “persuasion”, it had to do with standing for small-government, conservative values. Note that Newt was taken down primarily by Republican moderates, McCain being at the top of that list.
          3. The Democratic Party stands for something. It may be Marxism-lite, but at least it’s something. Given a choice between “something” and “nice” people will take “something” every time.
          4. When the Republican Party starts standing for small-government again the number of Independents will drop like a rock.

          • UpLateAgain

            The 2006 election was not so much a Democratic win as a Republic loss. People weren’t choosing liberalism when Congress became Democratic. In an ironic turn of events they were refuting it. On the Republican side it was a good deal of “throw the bums out” attitude for all their unfettered spending, lack of border control, and nudging of all too many socialist agendas toward fruition with things like the drug plan. The infusion of Blue Dogs is just another indication that was the case. many saw the Dems they were putting in as being to the right of the Reps they were throwing out.

          • mbecker908

            When GWB crawled under his desk and refused to fight the enemy on the home front, which isn’t really surprising since he was elected on the platform that he wasn’t slick willy and wouldn’t have interns on their knees in the Oval Office.

          • SteveLA

            mbecker

            I tend to think Bush actually did stand for something, conducting the war or terrorism, which he did pretty darn well. I think history will show that Bush spent his political capital on keeping that fight going, much to the exclusion of dealing with domestic policy issues. Bush also had a war time VP with Dick Chenney who really does not do touchy feel domestic issues very well.

            Throw in some of the well known Bush is a hopeless as a public speaker, and for the most part that’s what you get. Someone who for 8 years was more interested in the GWOT and keeping this country safe and was willing to let Democrats slide to keep the fight going.

          • UpLateAgain

            GWB’s foreign policy was strategic and goal oriented and it kept us safe for the term of his presidency… what he considered his number one responsibility and something few would have thought possible on 9-12.

            But it wasn’t just his lack of leadership domestically that cost us in 2006. It was a whole party fully of Republican politicians who grew too fat in DC, and went from merely being unwilling to oppose big government to the easy route of actively supporting it, trying to buy support from special interest groups and buy votes directly through excessive pork.

          • mbecker908

            he showed his true colors – yellow.

            He spent no political capital keeping the fight going, he just rightly concluded that the Ds wouldn’t stop it. I absolutely disagree that “he” carried on the fight “darn well”, it was carried on by the soldiers and Marines with next to no support in DC (as opposed to outright opposition now – see Afghan RoE).

            With respect to ULA’s comment about a “party full of…”, that’s what you get when you have absolutely no – NO! – leadership from the top. Say what you will about BO, but at least he appears to be coming to the party with some leadership on health care (wrong direction, of course). We had no leadership from GWB from late 2003 on.

          • Achance

            Democrats on ANYTHING for eight years really took the toll. Not only did the Bush WH do little or nothing to defend itself and its policies, Republican Congressional “leadership” for the most part couldn’t run far enough away from both President Bush and his policies. He compounded his lack of a defense for his personnel and policies with an unwillingness to do anything to restrain Republican Congressional excesses.

            Fundamentally, from both the Executive and Legislative Branches, Republicans proved that they cannot govern the Country. George Bush should have hunted down the leakers and shot them like dogs in the road. He should have paid some attention his DOJ and put some prominent Democrats in jai rather than spend their time largely on pursuing Republicans. Both Congress and the WH should have looked first at what they were funding out in the Country. WJC did a very good job of setting up all sorts of state level programs that using federal funds and state match provide all sorts of sinecures and contract and grant revenue to Democrat activists and front groups. Why in the World would a Republican Congress pass and a Republican President sign an appropriation bill that included money for outfits like ACORN? Why didn’t Pelosi and Reid and the other loud-mouthed Lefties in Congress lose something important to their district every time they opened their vile mouths. Republicans let “homeland security” simply become a synonym for pork and corruptions. Most of that money ain’t going to places that will ever vote Republican, it gets funnelled off to all sorts of union and training front groups that just launder it back to the Democrat Party. The only thing I ever saw GWB’s DHS turn down was Frank Murkowski’s jet. Musta’ figured a Republican would be a rich white guy who could buy his own. I can go on, but I get too disgusted.

          • mbecker908

            was the SwiftVets. Guys who both Bush and McCain told – in pointed terms – to shut up and go away. If not for John O’Neill and the brave men who followed his leadership we’d be dealing with John Kerry’s second term and McCain would likely be Secty of Defense. Or VP.

          • mbecker908

            GWB will be seen as the R version of Jimmy Carter. Hopefully he will be a better former President.

          • SteveLA

            Art

            Gee I thought you knew how the game was played.

            You take away stuff from Democrats, they don’t vote for your funding to continue the GWOT. While the American people supported the war in Iraq at first, that support eroded. Start taking away “goodies” that a high ranking politician of any stripe brings back to the folks back home, you loose their votes because the folks back home remember the tasty pork and not the higher goal of keeping safe. Heck you’re seeing that now with what’s going on in Afghanistan right now.

          • mbecker908

            Bush was absolutely MIA to the point of agreeing with the Ds about the “16 words” even though the Brits stood by the statement. The only message – for five years – was that this was a cooked up and cocked up war. What do you expect?

            If Bush had manned-up and gone after Kerry on his lifetime of treason, tossed the editors and publisher of the NYT in the can over the leaks and generally fought the enemy at home, things would most likely be different.

            Then again, if the 2000 ticket had just been Cheney/Bush…

          • Achance

            I like Dick Cheney, but he loses all the minorities, all the divorced or never married women, all the middle-of-the roaders, all the metrosexuals/castrati, and almost all the young. The schools have now spent forty years telling kids that old white guys are intrinsically evil and anything resembling an authoritative father figure is just an abuser in waiting. There won’t be any adult men elected to the Presidency in this Country for a very long time, if ever again.

          • mbecker908

            Butt hell, let an old guy enjoy his dreams.

            More drugs and alcohol for you.

          • SteveLA

            Art,

            All modern Presidents to some extent do touchy-feely with the American people, and I just can’t picture Dick Cheney having a fireside chat with people talking about the economy, the price of gasoline, or anything else in domestic sort of policy issues.

            Cheney is a great defender of this country, but the idea of him playing Uncle Fuzzy Wuzzie “feeling your pain”….would be great SNL skit.

          • UpLateAgain

            Not my first choice…. for a number of reasons (which I’ve no doubt contributors here will be all too glad to point out), but by the time that election rolls around, people are going to be so sick of the still dead economy, double-digit inflation, the next massive stack market crash, massive corruption that was exposed in the interim between now and then, not to mention the war in Afghanistan, the terrorist attacks that have occurred, the pending race riots, and the fears of how much worse it’s going to be when cap&trade, Obamacare, and rigid FCC control of the Internet and all radio and TV communication actully go into effect, that they will PRECISELY be looking for an adult that at the very least seems to take a rational approach to governance with attainable goals (i.e…an adult)

          • Achance

            My point is that it wasn’t played very well when played at all. Those collegial old men on the R side had the votes for anything they wanted if they’d been willing to play hard ball. They just preferred to get along with their “friends” accross the aisle. Even when the Ds got stuff, it didn’t mute their voices and rarely got their votes. We see now how those fools’ friends across the aisle try to get along with Republicans now that they’re in charge. BOHICA is their motto. And if necessary to get one of their Holy Grail bills passed, they won’t hesitate to trot out “nuclear options,” see e.g., card check, which may be necessary to shore up their hegemony if they ram through Obamacare.

          • SteveLA

            Art,

            Ever hear “You shouldn’t strike a king unless you can kill a king.”?

            Who knows what sort of President Bush would have been if not for 9/11, but he did come into office after a very turbulent 8 years on the political fighting front over the sins of Slick Willy who was fairly popular and in some ways a talented politician. Bush himself signaled that change in the run up to his defeat of AlGore with compassionate conservatism. Along came 9/11, along came the GWOT, Bush decided to not fight the GWOT and the Democrats at the same time.

            Maybe that old axiom has some bearing when it came to Bush and who and how he choose his battles with Democrats and for that matter spending like drunken sailor Republicans who backed things like Medicare Part D.

          • Achance

            had it not been for 9/11. The ’04 election was pretty much a referendum on patrotism, and patriotism barely won. Had it been a referendum on how the Country was being governed the outcome would have been different. In retrospect, we might have been better off with Kerry and a Republican Congress. Congress would have found a pair and the Ds wouldn’t have been able to run riot they way they were with the wildly unpopular GWB. Rove et al. put up that Kerry would abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, but he wouldn’t have any more than Comrade Obama has. The Ds learned something from wandering in the Wilderness after Vietnam; they’ll tell their anti-war types they’re going to get out, but they know better than to precipitate another disgraceful withdrawal and human rights catastrophe. Those pictures of the Embassy in Saigon being evacuated are seared on a generation no matter what your position on the war was.

          • Common_Cents
          • UpLateAgain

            Obama’s really just getting started there, and it’s already an unpopular war with an already war-weary populace being asked to support it. He’s got a helluva dilemma there. He’s going to have to ramp up big time or get out, and neither option is a good one politically.

            Even though the press coverage is minimal, I tend to think that alone is going to make Mr. O a one-termer.

          • clowngirl

            I disagree with your analysis. Obama didn’t win because he stood for something ( unless you count “change” as standing for something) – he went out of his way to be as vague and to pretend to be a moderate.

            Most Obama voters didn’t vote for marxism they just voted for the Non- Republican, for “change” they voted for all the feel good rhetoric and dishonest campaign promises.

            Some group did an experiment where they went out and talked to voters about McCain’s positions but attributed the positions to Obama. Voters liked them when they thought they were Obama’s – I think they actually went to other voters and found that they rejected Obama’s positions if they were said to be McCain.

            Obamamania was not based on substance. Now that Obama is standing for something he’s losing altitude faster than any President in history.

            Obamamania had EVERYTHING to do with Obama’s perceived likability.

        • nessa

          …Beck and Savage, among others. I just listen to them more often than the others. The reasons they cite are valid, when you compare corruption on a party to party basis there is enough to justify there being no difference. judging by the laws passed and the general direction they took us, once again, little difference. 94 may have begun with a goal of smaller govt but it never got there. One way to battle that is to withhold your membership, make it plain and obvious to both parties that they will have to earn your support. There are flaws with that, the main one I see is that the parties begin to run candidates based on what groups they will attract, as we’ve seen and hear every day from the “big tent” Republicans.
          Personally I’d rather stay with the Republican Party and change it from the inside, ala ColdWarrior and the Precinct Project
          ( http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/becoming-a-precinct-committeeman-step-by-step/ )
          An inside job is going to be more effective, we can force the party to run the candidates who actually stand for something other than lining their own pockets or just getting re-elected. Maybe this time we actually will get a smaller government and fiscal responsibility, among other things.

          • http://www.conservative-compendium.com BrianGarst

            “An inside job is going to be more effective, we can force the party to run the candidates who actually stand for something other than lining their own pockets or just getting re-elected.”

            I agree with this, though I think there’s some benefit from people threatening to go independent. Things like that can get people scared in high places and force change. It’s similar to the usefulness, in my view, of states being able to threaten succession. Back when they could, anyway.

          • UpLateAgain

            There’s no Reagan out there right now, but the folks are going to be looking right of center nonetheless. I really think it’s going to be someone like Newt…. right of center, with a good dose of fiscal conservatism (Romney as VP?), but not overly threatening to the middle-of-the-roaders.

          • nessa

            Before this gets jumped by her supporters, SWSNBN could be one of the Reagans, in about 20 years. I see alot of similarity between Ronaldus Magnus in the 50s when he first started working for GE and SWSNBN and find the huge push for her in ’12 humorous in many ways. She needs more tempering, more learning, just like Reagan still did when he was campaigning for Goldwater. Let her continue to lead the folks who are rabidly dedicated to her, Lord knows she’s effective in many ways, she’ll learn and develop, in a few years maybe she’ll be ready to walk into a WH press conference and say “Before I refuse to take your questions, I have prepared a statement.”
            We’re damn short on Leaders right now but they’re out there, I feel the need for one but I’m also leery of accepting any from the current crop of pols in DC, they’ve already failed me too many times in too many ways. Dire circumstances have a way of bringing out the best in people, the small organizers of the Tea Party movement, many of the bloggers here and other sites, some have obvious qualifications others will step up to the plate out of some perceived necessity. The new blood is what we need the most, at all levels of government. I’m good with waiting till 2011 to see what Reagans we have available.

          • SteveLA

            Reagan never quit as governor of California in the very trying time of the late 60′s, both in terms of governance of the state and attacks on his family. For two Full terms by the way.

            Reagan worked hard for others in the Republican party during those years in the wilderness.

            Reagan studied hard and became a master of policy issues.

            That’s the standard that I look for.

          • clowngirl

            wasting his time and preventing him from doing his job,

            Maybe Palin could’ve changed the law so Governors wouldn’t have to deal with such nonsense, but as things were her time was being wasted. It will be better spent out campaigning for Republican candidates in 2010. :)

          • Achance

            and in most of the state capitals control the switches and levers of power in the Party. Nobody that most of us here would consider any sort of leader is going to be given access to those switches and levers if they’re in a position that causes them to have to ask.

            That is why it is so vital that each and every one of us find some office or role in our Party at the local, county, district, state level so that we get some control over the switches and levers. Right now we have a combination of incumbents and rich guys supported by their lackeys who really don’t need the Party anymore, the Party needs them. If I’m an elected official, once I’ve done the cocktail circuit I time or two, I don’t really fear the Party or my former rivals any more. I can just call on my new “friends” for money when I need to run for re-election and I’ll leave some upstart reformer in the fund-raising dust. Even if there are people back in the district that are unhappy with me and threatening to support somebody else, I just call them and tell them that they can either be my friend or my enemy.

            We have to go back to what the Democrats once were, a Party organized right down to block captains and if the block captain doesn’t like you, no matter how much money you have, you ain’t carrying his block in the primary. If we do that, money will kill the Democrat Party organization the same way it killed ours, not that we ever had as much organization anyway. Then we have to be prepared to strike.

          • nessa
          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            In my entire life, except him. To be like him you would have to :

            1) Be correct on almost all of the issues
            2) Have a “big vision” of the future
            3) Be very charismatic and believable
            4) Be able to articulate your vision well
            5) Be able to attract talented people around you
            6) Be completely unshakable in the direction you are going, but be able to compromise when necessary
            7) Be optimistic and genial.
            8) never undersell or underestimate the middle class, or call them names.

            Nope, don’t see anyone who even remotely measures up, not even Palin.

          • clowngirl
  • clowngirl
  • http://www.conservative-compendium.com BrianGarst

    “and looking at the pictures of people shoulder-to-shoulder all the way from the Capitol Steps to past the Washington Monument I believe it.”

    If you saw such a picture then it wasn’t from 9.12. We weren’t allowed on the mall grass and most certainly did not extend to the monument (there was another event which had a permit for the area near the Washington monument; a big “step competition”). Other parts of the mall were open and had college kids playing frisbee and people laying around.

    The center area extending out from the speaker platform was very tightly packed, but the side areas around the speaker weren’t that dense in many places. People were laying out on blankets and there was ample space to spread out and move around. Some examples:

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/3913370431_c93c63b1ec.jpg

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2480/3914155168_b4cb279d2f.jpg

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2560/3914155308_abfbeeee8d.jpg

    60k-75k is a made up figure by some random fire official, as the DC fire department doesn’t do estimates. I’d eat my hat if the turnout wasn’t a health six figures,

  • UpLateAgain

    I was watching the Fox News coverage of the event, and froze the screen on one of the camera pans on a monitor Glenn beck had going on behind him.

    I was watching a TIVO’d edition, so don’t know off hand what time of day it was, or if the shot was taking in more than one group, but the street was blocked shoulder-to-shoulder.

  • http://www.conservative-compendium.com BrianGarst

    Is from 9/12.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6Y5ctiQjR7g/SqvjYzX0HiI/AAAAAAAAK0g/RM3-GKu1knw/s1600-h/_Device+Memory_home_user_pictures_IMG00035-20090912-1331.jpg

    The two buses on the end of the crowd (from CNN if I recall) were parked at the edge of the mall. See any people on the grass past that? The big white tents at the far end are part og a step competition not affiliated with the protest.

    The mall was empty. It simply was. I saw it, I walked on it. I went and bought a hot dog from a vendor in the middle of the rally. Protest folk were walking along the paths but none were on the mall for the event.

    • UpLateAgain

      Looking around different blogs, there is a LOT of differing opinion as to how many were actually there yesterday. And a lot of speculation that the town filled up with over a million extra people who were essentially there for the 9-12 event but didn’t go specifically to the Capitol steps.

      It would be nice to know what the story actually is.

      It is noteworthy in any event that the Bonus Army in 1932 had about 35,000 protesters, and it was (at least until recently) considered a noteworthy historical event, requiring a rather harsh government response. I have NO doubt that yesterday’s rally greatly exceeded that number.

  • http://www.conservative-compendium.com BrianGarst

    Don’t go from me, I didn’t count. I’m just saying, any estimation that starts with the assumption that the mall was packed will necessary reach a faulty conclusion, because it wasn’t, as that picture clearly shows.

    Personally, for what it’s worth, I think the 60k-70k being thrown around is bunk. Near as I can tell some random fire official was asked for his opinion and the media treated it like gospel. Judging by the old USA Today chart from someone’s inauguration, the area they have marked off as 240k was pretty well filled up, though not always very dense. So 200,000+ seems very plausible, which is not surprisingly several orders of magnitude above media reports.

  • avgamerican

    The global threat. Cap and trade, HR3200, military cuts, pacifist foreign policy. The devaluing of the US dollar. With all these things the US will be marginalized and lose our soverignty to the U.N. BHO is the appointed leader to usher in this overall plan. US military and economic strength has stood in the way of the globalist movement, BHO and the progressive strartegy is to remove us from this position.

  • UpLateAgain

    I believe BHO is the front guy for a Marxist movement based on a belief that the USA is wealthy enough to actually make Marxism really work for the first time in history.

    I believe that he sees capitalist ventures as sources of wealth for him to spread about, without any right to profit or personal reward for the efforts of making the venture work. If it dies as a result…. no big deal, the government can take it over if he thinks it is needed, and if not, so what….. thousands of businesses fail every day and the country is still here.

    He thinks American Exceptionalism means that we think we have the right to push other folks around, rather than understanding its true meaning of setting new world standards for personal and national prosperity by supporting the preeminence of the individual.

    He doesn’t get the whole ‘goose that laid the golden egg’ thing, and is perfectly happy to kill that goose and distribute the parts to the masses.

    And he thinks that the rest of the world hates us because we hog all the worlds resources and build our wealth essentially on the backs of the poor world-wide. He wants to change us to eliminate ‘American Exceptionalism’ from the lexicon.