Size Isn't Everything, but How Big Was It?

The big news from the weekend, of course, was the TEA Party / 9.12 project march on Washington over the weekend. It's interesting to watch the reaction from the Left-Wing Media complaining that this is a "fringe element of racists."

Denial isn't just a river in Africa, as the saying goes.

Hot Air points out that size isn't everything. A huge anti-war march was held in Washington in 2003 when 65% of Americans supported the War on Terror. Still, the crowd that showed up was bigger than expected. The New York Times reported "the magnitude of the rally took authorities by surprise, with throngs of people streaming from the White House to Capitol Hill for more than three hours."

Estimates vary.

... and "Vary" is an understatement. Some leftist blogs are reporting that 20,000 to 30,000 marched on Washington this past weekend. The city officials are reluctant to give out numbers, but the city fire department claims 75,000 people were in attendance. O'Reilly reported the 75,000 numbers as "fact" because the numbers were "unbiased." He feels that the unionized, mostly democratic, mostly black D.C. Fire Department employees would have no reason to intentionally under-report the numbers.

Other estimates have ranged from 1.75 million to 2.5 million.

I don't know. I've looked at the photos and video of the crowds. It looks like a LOT of people, but I have no idea whether the number is closer to 50,000 or closer to 2 million. Still, the numbers approach, if they don't exceed, the numbers for the million man march and the million mom march.

What's more important than the actual numbers is the demographics. While there were few hard-core leftists joining in on the protests, those protesting were not simply conservatives. There were a large number of independents, including people who voted for Obama in 2008. There were also a huge number of people who have never been politically active in their lives.

What this signals is a change in mood and attitude in America. Polls are showing that independents are increasingly opposing Obama and the Democratic party, not just on the health care issue, but on other big government spending programs.

This does not bode well for Democrats in the coming elections.

I recall hearing a couple of Democratic pundits, including James Carville, who said immediately following the November election of Obama, that the Democrats and leftists would be in power for at least the next 20 years.

Twenty years sure have flown by.

Had Obama governed in the center, pushing a few leftists policies here and there, and tried to keep his poll numbers up, they may have been right. As it is, the left is seeing 2009 and 2010 as their "big opportunity." They intend to push every leftist bill, policy and ideal through this year and next. In doing so, they are increasingly alienating not just those who consider themselves fiscally conservative, but also libertarians, independents, and even moderate democrats.

The administration is denying what's going on, of course. They want to insist that the TEA party crowd is a fringe element. They want to push their agenda. I hope they continue to convince themselves that they have the support of America behind them. The continued push to the left is what is going to hand Congress back to the right in 2010 and the White House in 2012.