So, how is Tommy Christopher being any more classy than the excrement covered poster? One man’s “hatriot” is another man’s patriot. Isn’t it about time we all stopped hating each other and started looking for something to identify with so we can actually solve a problem? Tommy is just like the hidden camera reporters at ACORN, looking for dung and they both found it. This site is devolving into a really crummy experience for someone not on the far left. I was fortunate enough to be an early member of ACT UP. We did nothing but yell and scream and behind it all was the terrible pain of losing loved ones to AIDS and the terror that we may be next. Maybe the people at today’s rally are afraid. There is some truth to the statement that adding millions of people to an overburdened healthcare system might bring on catastrophe. And our government really doesn’t run anything all that well (in my opinion). I think it’s a shame that Dan Abrams is allowing this site to publish something like the above Tommy Christopher piece.

I think it’s a shame that some people are so delusional as to truly believe that conservatism is the right direction for our country right now. After so many years of failed policies–both economic, social and foreign affairs related–I think it’s clear that we need a progressive approach. We need to look forward, not backward. We need to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. In the words of Obama, “we came here not to fear the future, but to shape it.”

These people, these protestors with their ignorant signs and callous, cruel hatred for the liberal movement, fear the future. They fear change and they fear progress. They fear diversity, risk and challenge. Were it up to these people, it would still be 1890, sans industrial revolution, before racial and gender equality, before the social and technological progress the world has seen over the past century.

In regards to healthcare, specifically–it’s clear now that adding almost anyone to our faulty and failing healthcare system NOW is gradually bringing about catastrophe, UNLESS we act to stop it. By taking practical, realistic, responsible measures to bringing about healthcare reform–as well as paying for it–Obama is proving that he is up to this task.

You said that “maybe the people at today’s rally are afraid.” Of course they are afraid. It’s been clear since the campaign that there is a significant block of Americans that are “afraid” of change, afraid of Obama, and afraid of the progressive movement. But the harsh reality is that it doesn’t matter. Nothing has ever gotten done by hiding and cowering in fear from the change that new policies might bring about. And they are the minority, now. In a majoritarian system such as ours, they cannot–and will not–win this fight.

These people may have gained the media attention on 9/12. But on 9/13, and all the days afterward, when their delusional signs, racial hatred and conservative fear are nowhere to be seen on the streets of DC, it will be all the move obvious that this is a small minority of Americans still harboring this fear based on misunderstanding, lies and disbelief.

—

On a personal level, I think Tommy Christopher is a fine writer and a fine journalist. And given that you have ZERO explanation behind your statement that “it’s a shame that Dan Abrams is allowing this site to publish something like the above Tommy Christopher piece,” I think you should think before you make comments like that in the future. “Looking for dung”? It’s clearly not all that hard to find in the conservative movement.

This is nothing like the ACORN videotape. The ACORN videotape showed people doing terrible things on hidden camera. What they did is indefensible.

But that is two people caught on hidden camera in a sting that the producers tried in the New York office and were turned away. They tried the Philly office and were turned away and ACORN filed a police report. They tried Los Angeles where the local staff laughed at them and told them to get out.

What I did was go to the well publicized 912 DC events and walked around openly taking pictures of people’s signs. They posed for the pictures. This was a crowd of 50,000 people on the Mall in public. The crowd didn’t think there was anything wrong with what their signs, they were very proud of it. I have tons more photos, these terrible signs are not the exception they are the rule.

It’s a good thing they didn’t portray Jews as greedy Nazi demons warmongers, throw Molotov cocktails at banks, have their kids accuse Jews of being organ thieves, organize a game of pin the Molotov cocktail on cop car, beat up counterprotestors, or threaten to kill the President.

That would have been plagiarism. On the other hand, we Republicans have another seven and a half years to live up to the other party’s standards for tasteless, insipid, and violent protests. While it’s clear that we’re working hard on it, I wouldn’t bet on us succeeding.

I’m a little new to the site and to Mr. Christopher’s writing, and Mr. Lawson’s photographs… so I was wondering if someone (or they) could link me to the articles condemning the left-wing protesters of a few years ago. See, I remember all those Hitler posters, the signs, the costumes… heck, I even remember the photos of the very class left-wing group who ware the “Sara Palin is a C**t” shirts.

Now it seems to me, that these two “fine writers” would have said similar things about those events… right? I mean, they’re not really big hypocrites who only write about people who disagree with them politically, but claim niavete when it comes to the folks on their own side… right? But as I said, I’m new here… so I’m sure a few links will answer that question… right?

Byrne & ImNotBlue, well said! Tommy Christopher is no writer and Alex Lawson is no photographer as he must be half blind: It is estimated that close to TWO MILLION people attend the rally today (not his count of 50,000).

To ImNotBlue:

as a matter of fact, I have defended conservatives against this sort of thing as well. Try this for starters:

http://tommychristopher.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/playboy-magazine-officially-hates-women-conservative-or-otherwise/

Tommy Christopher, you opened your story about a rally of nearly TWO MILLION people with a picture of a horse-shit covered sign and the following: “They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I think this one says it all.” Something right out of the Joseph Goebbels propaganda manual. And you dare call yourself a writer. BS!

Wow Tommy, you mean you actually commented about Playboy and their hate **** rape of conservative women. That must have been difficult.

Now where were you on Van Jones and his outrageous and racist comments? Where were you on all the Bush=Hitler nonsense? Where were you on the Daily Ko’s and other ads showing Bush throwing old people down the stairs in wheelchairs? Where were you when liberals were dancing a glee when Tony Snow and others died?

So what did you include out of all the protestors there? What is it about 8 different signs out of how many people there? Wow, that really tells a story. Of course, you also have no idea if they were conservatives holding those signs or liberal infiltrators (once again trying to pose as conservatives).

Why not show of photo montage of the real signs that dominated the gathering?

If you want to see what I wrote then, go read it

http://www.politicsdaily.com/bloggers/tommy-christopher/

The signs are real. Read the story again. The Kennedy signs were printed and distributed by ALL.

Tommy Christopher says:
September 12, 2009 at 11:22 pm

I appreciate you getting back to me… that’s all sarcasm aside, I respect that you’re not a “dine and dash” kind of blogger (leaving your message, then running away when someone makes a comment). Thanks!

However… we’re kinda comparing apples and oranges here. Yes, the Playboy piece was really offensive… but in discussing why, you said, “What’s worth noting, too, is that although he singles out conservative women, the author belies a hostility toward all women.” In other words, your thesis isn’t necessarily a defense of “conservative women,” rather “women” in general, no party affiliation. And while that’s a very respectable opinion to have (perhaps the only respectable opinion to have), it’s not really evidence of you equally criticizing loony left-wing political activists.

In fact, you also say this in Update 3, “The guy [Guy Cimbalo] is obviously not a conservative, but he’s also no more representative of liberals than Perez Hilton is representative of gay rights advocates. Both are bigmouths with courtside seats.” Your point (unless I’m mistaken), is that this isn’t representative of Liberal or Progressive thought. That in mind, I’m not sure how you can point to this as evidence of your impartiality, or unbiased-itude (my word), as you state the author isn’t like-minded.

There are a lot of loons out there… however, if you want to argue “civility” and “maturity,” you must apply the same standard to all people… not just the “useful idiots” who argue generally on your side. The protest today was no more offensive (and I would argue a degree less offensive) than the protests that filled the streets over the past 8 years. If you don’t want to remember or acknowledge them (as I heard Ed Schultz deny last week) that’s your prerogative… but by nature, it negates your ability to complain about the other side… lest you admit the hypocrisy.

WTF?….Every one of the sign photos posted above are tame, compared to the downright hostile signs and photo posters carried by “progressives” in the recent past. George Bush’ photo with the caption “World’s Number One Terrorist”, Bush dolls hanging from ropes, pics of Dick Cheney on his knees in front of Bush, etc., etc., and all the while MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC proudly broadcasting footage of this with nothing to say, except for Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow. Both puppets for MSNBC.
Oh, there’s more…Sean Penn going to Iraq to badmouth his own country, Michael Moore making propaganda films and badmouthing the USA and sucking up to the French and Cubans, Janine what’s her name making a fool of herself with lies about our govt., Oliver Stone fist bumping with Hugo Chavez. David Letterman making offensive comments about Sarah Palin’s daughter and sex.
So Mr. Christopher, before you start criticizing and passing judgment based on the lame examples furnished by Alex Lawson, how about posting pics of the hostile anti-Bush and anti-USA signs carried by your buds on the Left. As byrne stated earlier, we have a ways to go before we can catch up (which I too doubt) with the low-class hostility displayed by your “Progressive” buds.
LOL…..you got balls man, posting a BS story and lame pics. I will admit I was disappointed not to have seen the Obama Joker poster that’s available on some websites. Dude, go home and watch re-runs of Bill Maher!

Alex Lawson is credited as being an activist, not a photographer. Way to go MEDIAITE! ImNotBlue gives Tommy Christopher a lot more credit than I would. I’m more in line with byrne & greenhaven, this piece is an example of horse shit covered opinion dressed-up as journalism.

And SFPhoto must get all his news off of the Free Republic message board.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055

All the news outlets are correctly reporting the size of the rally at 50,000 to 60,000.

A huge disappointment for the organizers who were saying that a million people were going to come out.
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/xn/detail/2978134:Event:67128?xg_source=activity

Obama’s inauguration drew 1.5 million people, they stretched from the Capitol to the Lincoln memorial.

The 912 rally filled the area by the Capitol and the pool and stretched a bit into the beginning of the Mall. The Smithsonian Folk Life Festival was between the 912 rally and the Washington monument and the Black Family Reunion was after the Washington Monument before the Lincoln Memorial.

So no SFPhoto I am not blind you are just wrong.

JimW do you see my name on the byline of this article? You are right I am not a journalist nor a photographer, I took all these photos with my iPhone. I don’t understand your point.

The point is that you had an agenda prior to going to the rally and you took pictures only to prove your point. There are pictures of the event all over the place, no one seems to have found the horse shit sign except you. AND THE SHIT IS NEATLY CLEARED AWAY AROUND THE TYPE. CUT ME A BREAK! YOU ARRANGED THE SHIT!

JimW you are right that I went there with an agenda, but I didn’t have to stage anything. The folks at the protest set that up and were taking photos of it while laughing, they thought it was a great joke. You missed the whole point of why this is offensive, THE PROTESTERS SET THE SIGN UP UNDER THE SHIT SO THEY COULD LAUGH AND TAKE PICTURES OF IT. (do the caps help?)

http://twitpic.com/photos/dcfightsback

You can take a look at my other pictures where I have a bunch of photos of the protesters laughing and taking pictures of the sign covered in horse poo. I walked over there because there was a crowd. The first 5 pictures are of protesters photographing and laughing at this “hilarious joke.”

So no I didn’t set anything up I just walked around and took pictures of the protest.

Alex, I don’t believe you. I went to your link and there are no pictures of protesters artfully arranging horse shit on that sign. I think that either you took a dump on the sign and neatly arranged everything thinking how clever you are or you just found some horse shit and put it on a sign that someone gave you. Either way, the picture is presented as an IRONIC EXAMPLE of what your buddy, Tommy Christopher, set out to prove.

Its a fair question to ask both Tommy and Alex questions here but lets be clear about a few things:

1) This is an opinion column
2) Tommy is pretty transparent in his description of Lawson as a “activist” and Lawson seems to accept and embrace that title.
3) I am getting tired of activists on both sides trying to pigeon hole the site (last week Media Matters accused us of basically having a love affair with Glen Beck).
4) It is true signs at a rally dont prove a macro point, but it is interesting. Spare me the tit for tat stuff. Please let us know when you have analgous photos on the other side at an event like this and we will publish them.
5) Give both Tommy Christopher and Alex Lawson credit for having the guts to debate in the comments section.
6) Chill out

I meant to start that with “Its fair to ask both Tommy and Alex questions here. . .” Its late.

If you look at these pictures, you’ll notice that they’re all cropped to contain a single sign. There’s a reason each picture only shows one sign. If you showed a photo of the crowd, you’d see that those signs do not reflect the majority of the protesters.

Alex has failed to “capture the essence of the protest”. Instead he handpicked a few unsavory individuals to fit his anti-teaparty agenda.

And so I agree. Those pictures do speak a thousand words. About Alex and Tommy.

Unless you can all provide me with links to your negative comments at HuffPo, Politico, and ABC News, I really don’t want to hear it. All of those outlets posted just the Kennedy sign, by itself, with zero context, and disapproving commentary. HuffPo also has a picture of people gathered around the shit-covered sign.

While there’s no doubt that this is a commentary piece, I also took the time to provide several examples, with clear sourcing and a clear point of view, and tracked down the origin of the sign.

Yes, there is a reason each picture shows a single sign: That’s how people take pictures. The guy isn’t really equipped to take a panoramic shot with his phone.

ImNotBlue,

I meant for you to read back further than that, like when I stuck up for Carrie Prejean when Countdown made fun of her tits and compared her to a Nazi, or when I called out a Townhall columnist for using racially charged imagery, or when I pointed out that Countdown ran a “short bus” graphic in the same episode where they tried to shame Sarah Palin by donating to the Special Olympics, or when Redstate made implications about incest regarding Levi Johnston and his sister, or when I counter-protested left wingers in Denver, or when I asked Gibbs if he thought it was cool to make fun of people who brought their kids out in the rain for the Tea Party, or…well, you get the picture.

As for the Playboy thing, that was the first example that came to mind because it cost me a job.

Having read Tommy Christopher since back in his AOL days, I know for a fact that he’s been very consistent on calling out outlandish speech such as this. In addition to the examples he’s already cited, he also repeatedly defended the likes of Hilary Clinton and Ron Paul when he felt they were being treated unfairly during the ’08 election season. Point being, a “Where were you when THIS happened?” argument carries no salt, since, well, he most likely WAS there “when this happened.”

Not to mention that such an argument is bread crumbs when compared to the issue of being extremely insensitive to the memory someone who wasn’t dead for even one month, and being so sincere and earnest about doing so, and for what? Just for the sake of a crappy joke? Is there anything worth defending in THAT?

Oops. It’s times like these when I want a comment-editing feature; one of those lines should be “…to the memory OF someone…”

Tommy, why even bother to write about something if you’re just determined to misrepresent it? You can site examples of objectivity you once possessed, but you don’t have that objectivity now. Alex Priest may praise you, but you’ve been exposed as fraud. You and Alex Lawson decided to equate a rally of two million people with a sign covered with horse shit, and that sign was staged. Enough said.

Nobody with any credibility believes there were two million people at that rally. And even if there were, it doesn’t excuse the offensiveness of the messages in those signs, or the act of covering the Obama sign with excrement. And saying “the left does it too” is a really immature, poor excuse for inexcusable behavior. I hate to hold up someone you all despise as an exemplar, but perhaps you should take a clue from President Obama about how to take the high road, and engage in a respectful, civilized conversation about how to bridge our differences instead of sinking to the depths of tastelessness displayed by your movement.

And give this photog a break – if you want a panoramic view of the event, there is plenty of other coverage all over the place. No one can rely on only one source to get a balanced view. This site and this author do not purport to be the final say on the story, if they did it would be entirely correct to call them out. However, with a more limited capacity to present the whole, out of all the possible non-meaningful portrayals of what they saw, they picked the ones that appeared to be newsworthy. If you only want favorable coverage of your despicable behavior, go to fox.

ChickaBOOMer: Howl Movement
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/09/howl-movement.html

Did the title of this story change within the last 12 hours to be about the Kennedy sign?

Also, if you are going to complain about that tasteless sign then why don’t you try and be objective about it? Why not write about how Pelosi and other Democrats within hours of Kennedy’s death were trying to take advantage of the situation? What about Harry Reid’s comment? Perhaps if the Democrats didn’t try within hours of Sen Kennedy’s death to try and rescue the failed Obama care by renaming it Kennedy Care there wouldn’t have been signs like that. Or the use off a kid at a memorial. Or Obama bringing up the letter from Teddy the other night. Don’t blame the Republicans for this but forgot to mention how the Democrats have used his death all for political gain.

Quick tip for all: If ANY part of your argument for justifying your idiotic behavior includes anything along the lines of “but they did it too”, then you’ve already lost the argument.

SFPhoto,

your (anonymously made) accusation is contradicted by 3rd party coverage of the event. Go check out HuffPo, they’ve got pictures of the protesters photographing the sign. The authenticity of the photo is not disputable, although your zeal to deny it must mean you denounce it, and good for you for that.

Captain,

I did write about Dems’ reaction to Kennedy’s death. Here’s the link:

http://tommychristopher.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/politicizing-kennedys-death-for-dummies/

Partisans on both sides have this weird idea about “balance” that says that, in order to report someone’s bad behavior, you must also catalog someone else’s past bad behavior. This is a fake burden.

For the sake of balance, however, this piece does include reporting about liberal counter-protesters who dress up as billionaires and thank the assembled protesters for doing their grunt work. They did not carry signs desecrating the recently deceased. How about that?

Tommy, I read your piece and it seems to me you are blaming Republicans for bringing up what the Dem’s were doing:

“The echo from my Tweetdeck’s delivery of the sad news had barely died down when conservatives started in: Now that Ted Kennedy had died, liberals had better not “play politics” with his death in order to get health care reform passed. While I might share a sliver of agreement with the sentiment, we differ wildly on the yardstick.”

You sure have a HUGE YARDSTICK for letting Dem’s get away with alot. But my point , you didn’t bring up the Dem’s pathetic use of Kennedy to try and rescue their failed health reform even in passing for complaining about the poor choice of signs at the rally.

When the Senate Majority leader can say something so terrible:

[Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) put his foot in his mouth again this week, saying in an interview that former Sen. Ted Kennedy's death would "help" the Democratic Party and move health care reform forward.

"I think it's going to help us," Reid told the Reno Gazette-Journal Aug. 29 when asked how Kennedy's death would affect the standing of the health care bill.]

Which is worse? The Senate Majority Leader saying such a crass thing or the sign? When the Dem’s say stupid things like that and try and use his death to hijack 1/6 of the economy, don’t be surprised if about some crass signs.

Captain,

this is a ridiculous, hydra-headed conversation. You didn’t read that piece, or you didn’t understand it, because the entire point of it was that the SPECIFIC statements that were being complained about did not meet the bar for crass politicization. I hadn’t seen, nor did I reference, the Reid comment, so I can hardly be accused of defending it.

Again, if someone does something messed up, they’re going to get called out for it, and all the tearful “But THEY said/did THIS…” arguments aren’t going to change that. This is a concept that’s taught in kindergarten, that bad behavior doesn’t excuse bad behavior, yet the notion eludes so many.

Here’s MY selective quote from that piece:

http://dailydose.us/2009/08/29/politicizing-kennedys-death-for-dummies/

“Any thinking, feeling human being should be able to understand a little something about the grieving process. Conservatives experienced it heavily when Reagan passed away not so long ago. It is a process that ought not to be interfered with, and I would even say it ought not to be scrutinized all that much. People like this, and people like this, should be ignored, and those grieving should either be supported or left alone.”

Tommy, you mean you haven’t seen nor read the Harry Reid comment he made on August 29 (by now)? I don’t care what you included in the article you wrote back then. I’m talking about what you didn’t mention when you are condemning those signs you saw in DC. I’m sorry but you shouldn’t expect everyone to know what you wrote 13 days ago or whenever.

If you are going to condemn something in a new article then at least putt some context for the reason people might be bringing signs like that. You could have mentioned Harry Reid in your new article. The Democrats turned Kennedy into just another political point. That should have been made clear in this current article. That would be far more fair than referencing people back to something you wrote on the 29th.

propitiousmoment says:
September 13, 2009 at 1:01 pm

And even if there were, it doesn’t excuse the offensiveness of the messages in those signs, or the act of covering the Obama sign with excrement. And saying “the left does it too” is a really immature, poor excuse for inexcusable behavior.

Tommy Christopher says:
September 13, 2009 at 1:54 pm

SuperSmart says:
September 13, 2009 at 1:35 pm

The argument isn’t “they did it to,” that would be using bad behavior to justify bad behavior. The argument is, “where was your (author, commenter, etc.) outrage when XYZ happened on YOUR side of the aisle?” Why is that relevant, you ask? Well, if we are to take the author at his or her word, then this stuff is very offensive because it is “mean spirited” and nasty. However, if they did not complain about the same stuff (and/or worse) when it was one of their political equals, then it’s evidence they object not because the signs are “mean and nasty,” but because of the OPINIONS held.

For example, Person A and Person B believe in XYZ, while Person C disagrees. Person B and Person C hold a protest, with identical signs, modified for their respective opinion. If Person A says Person C’s protest is “inappropriate,” but says nothing about Person B’s, what is the real complaint? It can’t be the protest, because the protests are identical… therefore it must be the difference, ie: the politics, not the content.

If Mr. Christopher and Mr. Lawson (neither of which were identified in this article as being Progressives, Liberals, or left-of-center, despite their obvious biases, agreement across the web of those biases, and note saying Mr. Lawson is an “activist” but not an “activist for what”) present the argument as though they are opposed to the protest, and offended by the signage because of the CONTENT, they are lying. The lie is proven by their silence towards protests on their own “side.” Therefore, we can conclude, they’re objecting to the POLITICS (Republicans, those who disagree on healthcare, etc.)… and that changes the effect of the article completely. That’s why the history is relevant.

Amanda Carpenter posted via twitter the best sign at the rally!

http://twitpic.com/hg0gm

Isn’t this the truth!

LMAO!! Good post, CaptainAmerica. Twit that to Maureen Dowd!

Here this should answer all your questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1I9xsV-g9Y

Which questions specifically?

Guess who was on MSNBC saying the Republicans should investigate and try and find the group behind those signs. Why David Shuster of course!!

He’s as bad or worse than Keith Olbermann. It’s disgusting that GE/MSNBC is so in the tank for Obama.

Worse… no. Just different. He has the same biases, and spews forth a lot of misinformation and lies (when is Rove going to be indicted again?), and is overall a bad reporter. BUT, he does talk to people who disagree with him, and he’s less pompous than Olbermann. I don’t think we’ll ever hear about Schuster throwing a major temper tantrum, the same way we’ve heard about KO.

So not worse, and not as bad, per se… but still far from good.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/size-matters-so-do-lies.html

Size Matters; So Do Lies
by Nate Silver @ 3:30 AM

This is a great analysis of how the lie about crowd size spread through the right wing echo chamber and ended up all over the internet, including a few times in the comments here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDzA7nChB4

Rachel Maddow: “Billionaires For Wealthcare” At Teabagger Protest In Washington, DC – 09/14/09

RE: The 5-30-8 Article

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call it a lie… it certainly wasn’t true, but for it to be a lie, I think the liars would have needed to know it was an overt lie. But either way, still not true.

However, don’t ignore the last paragraph, while you pat yourself on the back that it wasn’t “2-million people”:

This was not a small rally. It was also not, in comparison with something like the 2006 pro-immigration protests, a particularly large rally. It was a business-as-usual sort of rally. Mock the protesters at your peril: business as usual suddenly isn’t so good for Democrats these days, and the sentiments of the 70,000 people who marched on Washington surely mirror those of millions more sitting at home.

As for the repeated posts about the “Billionaires for Wealthcare” stuff… what is your point? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

I guess whether it is a lie depends on what your definition of is is. I am confident that Michelle Malkin knew it was a lie because anyone who has been to DC would know that if 2-million people came to DC the city would basically be shut down. 2-million people would be almost four times the population of the District the coverage would have been of all the streets blocked the entire Mall filled, all the Metro’s packed etc.

But even if I give you that Michelle Malkin was ignorant when she posted it and that the guy on stage was ignorant when he said the number, I can unequivocally say that Glenn Beck is a liar when he continues to say that 1.7 million people came to DC even after FreedomWorks issued their ludicrously inflated 600,000 number.

I never said the rally was small I just said that it was a laughably transparent lie to say that it was 600,000 or 1 million or 1.7 million or 2 million. Nate Silver is right, and I have said all along there are millions of people in this country who did not vote for Obama, never will vote for a Democrat, are passionately convinced that they are right and get all of their information from Fox news. Fact is the Democrats still won the election.

69,456,897 voted for Obama, but 59,934,814 voted against him. Those are the facts on the ground, the teabaggers do not represent the majority of the country. I don’t believe they represent the majority of the Republican party. But there are a lot of them.

Seeing as though my purpose for being at the rally was Billionaires for Wealthcare I am obviously answering your question about what type of activist I am and also shamelessly plugging our awesome new video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1I9xsV-g9Y

crap I must have been reading 912ers signs too long, *all the Metros packed

I have said all along there are millions of people in this country who did not vote for Obama,
So far so good…

never will vote for a Democrat,
Okay… but not everyone at the rally was a hardcore Republican, and the polls show he’s losing support among Independents…

are passionately convinced that they are right
Wouldn’t that be true of anyone willing to protest anything, or for that matter, write a blog and/or take photos for advocacy purposes… and if so, is that necessarily a bad thing?

and get all of their information from Fox news.
WHOA-NOOOO… the wheels came off the train! What is your evidence for that? What about the recent study that shows FNC STILL has a more balanced audience of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents? I know you (and the Liberal-left) want to use FOX as your perpetual boogie man… talking about the things “you don’t want to talk about,” “attempting to trick their audience,” and “perpetually promoting Right-wing propaganda,” but it’s just not true.

Those are the facts on the ground, the teabaggers [Ugh... I remember when the Democrats complained it was unfair of Republicans to call them the "Democrat Party." Apparently, the level of "civility and respect" the were so adamantly demanded doesn't work both ways.] do not represent the majority of the country.
Do any protesters represent a majority? Do they need to? Did the lefties calling Bush “Hitler” and the like, represent “the majority of the country?” Certainly not. They represented a vocal group of people, but not necessarily the majority… and nobody claims them to be the majority.

However, the fact does remain that Republicans tend to be less of the protesting-type… and the fact that these people (Republicans, and non-Obama supporters alike) are mobilizing at bigger and bigger numbers. As Nate Silver says, to underestimate them would be a mistake.

Seeing as though my purpose for being at the rally was Billionaires for Wealthcare
I get it now. I couldn’t figure out if you were pointing to jackasses attempting to amass a failure of a counter-protest (to show that you’re unbiased and would call out both sides for being dumb-dumb-stupid)… or if you were supporting them. But now I get it.

I like your groups idea of fighting fire with foolishness. I’m sure you will convince a lot of people that universal heathcare is the way to go, after they hear your songs, and see your costumes. Many people underestimate the power of 20-or so street performers, in a sea of 70,000… but wow, I’m sure you gave the protesters a lot to think about. *Rolls Eyes*

Again with the Fox news thing I am going by the signs and this little gem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iekKe4aOB8I

And as for Fox being fair and balanced, come on, next you will tell me MSNBC is a bastion of bipartisanship.

Fox knows what it is doing, Rupert Murdoch has a model that works, News Corp caters to conservatives.

Billionaires for Wealthcare is a PR stunt just like the manufactured outrage at the townhalls. And it isn’t aimed at convincing the 912ers, they are clearly not persuadable.

B4W is designed to expose the 912ers for what they wittingly or unwittingly are, shills for the insurance industry through their PR and lobby-ist front groups like FreedomWorks.
http://www.ourfuture.org/files/AHIP_chart.jpg

Our audience is the media at the events. We want to steal as much of the 912ers media as possible, the organizers spend millions of dollars to produce the earned media from the march/rally. Our audience is also our base like the 28,000 who have watched the youtube or those who saw us on Maddow.

Our main audience are the folks who sign up to take part in actions going forward at
http://www.billionairesforwealthcare.com/

Satire is and always has been a potent form of political expression.