Bill Press: I was at the Beck rally and I can say there were over 100,000 people there

[bigdarryl]

Bill your drinking the Beck COOL AID!!!

[Schema Thing]

1. I can say that I doubt a person on the ground's ability to know the difference

between 80,000 and 120,000 people gathered in a large area.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. I was there, too, and I don't think there were 100,000. Then again, it's likely that one

cannot distinguish between 80,000 and 100,000, but I really don't think that there was that many.

[JaneQPublic]

13. There were 100K, but half were liberals like you and Bill Press.

:rofl:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Yep. Sharpton didn't do too shabby with the turnout and low profile exposure from the M$M.

[CoffeeCat]

2. Holy cow, can we just move on?

Who cares if there were 20,000 people or 2 million?

We all know that Glenn Beck and the tea partiers are at least 15 percent of the electorate,
and they are politically active. They vote, they protest, they contact their elected
representatives. And yes, they travel to DC and attend rallies.

So what?

When we try to minimize the number of attendees--all we do is give them more power.

Beck had a six-figure crowd. Yippee. Let's all move on now.

[FormerDittoHead]

5. I think it makes a difference.

If it was 5 figures or 7 figures - it does make a difference.

I agree, however, that the difference between 80k and 100k isn't that much, and I hear you about the 15%

The difference between pushing a button that's right next to another button doesn't reflect DEPTH of conviction, and how much said person is likely to do other, related things. Taking a day, packing up, traveling, standing all day, etc. Those are greater steps than just pushing another button on a voting machine.

The fact is that our society (and I include all Western Europe) has a tradition where the squeaky wheel gets greased. There may be exceptions, but as an example, I would point out that we all know the name "Rosa Parks" - and she was just one person.

So, even while leveraging a 3 hour a day national radio show, and a daily hour of a national TV show, Beck can't get more than 80k people to come out on a nice day in Washington (the weather was beautiful - unlike the anti-war marches I've seen planned for... JANUARY????)

THAT'S the story - that the number of people are few who are willing to do any more than pick another button on the voting machine to
show their support for this kook and their half-assed "movement".

[trumad]

6. I really do hate it when people say "move on"...

The eight wing is crowing about how big the crowd was--- when in reality it was small--- 87,000 estimate from the experts.

It is important that we are vigilant when it comes to the lying bullshit that they spew on a daily basis.

[CoffeeCat]

7. I do agree with you...

...that there is a big difference between 87,000 and the 500,000 that Beck is suggesting.

I listened to him yesterday. I hate it when people say "move on" too. It's a pet peeve of
mine. I guess I am just fatigued after listening to Beck. He absolutely insists that there
were 500k+ there, and he spent a half hour convincing his listeners that everyone is minimizing
the number because we are afraid of their power.

Beck claims he has pictures of other rallies--proving that the number is as high as he's claiming.

He's also claiming victim status--and puffing up his importance---by suggesting that everyone is
lying about the number, in order to squash his powerful message.

I just see the guy getting puffed up with this argument. It gives him more fuel, "Ya see! They're
afraid of us and they hate God and they can't stand it that you are powerful, so they're going to
denigrate you. But I won't let them!"

I guess my feeling is--we will never have an accurate number. It's always going to be up for
debate. I would rather focus on dispelling his lies, propaganda and baseless, convoluted
historical distortions. Those are easily refutable.

And I agree with you that it is important to be vigilant. I guess I'm a bit exhausted after listening
to his bamboozlefest yesterday. He's got the propaganda thing down to a science--complete with crying,
using God to insulate himself from criticism and instilling a persecution complex into all of his
listeners, most of whom don't know their head from a hole in the ground. And they vote in high numbers.

Hold me.

[Pisces]

8. We already know he is lying, buy you will never convince his audience. Why

do we care. He lies everyday and his followers eat it up. The crowd tally is dominating the board posts???? All I know is that about 87 -100k ignorant fools showed up to a Beck rally. If he wants to say 500k ignorant fools showed up so what. Nothing new for him.

[liberal N proud]

3. I am sure if you were in a crowd of people it could feel like that many

But areal photos tell a different story.

[WI_DEM]

4. Who cares? certainly there are enough idiots in this country that it could be 100,000

but it certainly wasn't what they expected it would be.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. Yep! And I can say for sure that there definitely was NOT 500,0000 people there!

No way, no how.

[discopants]

11. Funny, they mocked the huge crowds for Obama during the campaign

and would question the high numbers even when the capacity of a venue was a known fact.

[BootinUp]

12. If Beck is going religulous on us, I don't doubt he can draw

large crowds. I don't care much either.

[juajen]

15. I actualy have an old conservative friend who attended.

He called me from there and told me he thought "There must be two million people here!" I honestly didn't know how to answer him, so I just told him to be careful.