Do Angry Protests Help or Hurt the Democratic Process?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/tampa-town-hall-on-health_n_253478.html

Violence broke out, police had to be called. Protesters said they were conservative radio and the local GOP offices. It's just a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured.

 

But it's just the same as a bunch of seniors chasing a Congressman.

 

i know the mayor in that video!

 

Ok this is getting out of hand as these meetings are looking like they are going to turn out to be nothing more than heated and confrontational battlegrounds for both Republican and Democrat interest groups.

Source:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/au...-roiling-town-hall-meeting-health/news-metro/

That is nothing more now than a recipe for fist fights and it doesn't matter which group has more people there as all it takes is two idiots to incite a mass brawl under those conditions.

 

It's one thing to coach people with talking abouts and pre-set questions, entirely another to coach them to disrupt public discussion and debate - that's unprecedented.

I think a moderator should be able to enstrict equitable and fair rules - such as not being able to speak without having the floor. It's called parliamentary procedure. It doesn't infringe on people's right to ask a question.

Look, you have to protect free speech, and part of protecting free speech is to prevent others who are trying to undermine free discussion. If someone starts shouting down a politician as they try to answer a question - that's not free speech - it's disorderly conduct.

If you want to protest, do it out side. If you want to say something, wait your turn and say it. But since when is shouting over a person so they can't express their opinion considered free speech????

 

A good compilation of news from the town hall front...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/health-care/#283642

 

no. no it's not.

 

You're right, those idiots in Florida also used disruptive tactics in 2000. Of course, those were GWB's operatives.

 

I'd like to get Batman Jones' opinion on this topic.

 

I think the comparison to '68 DNC war protests is terribly off-base. Largely, everyone agreed that there was in fact a war going on.

This case reminds me more of 9/11 Truthers. Alex Jones doesn't have quite the pull that Big Pharma does in terms of organization, but among the protesters themselves, the degree with which they are in touch with reality appears roughly the same.

Many of the protesters, in either signs or interviews, seem to think that Obama's health care will lead to a nationwide Logan's Running of everyone over 65. Sorry, Grandma, time's up: we're leaving you on a mountain top without any food. Many others think they're debating single-payer national health insurance; it's hard enough to get marginal reforms through, much less single-payer. It's a non-issue. Both the Limbaughs and many in Congress, rather than shining light on what reforms are actually up for debate, go along with such scare tactics.

Limbaugh & Beck are talking about eugenics & Nazi death camps for seniors/undesirables. Members of Congress suggest that the elderly will be left to die as a result of passage of reforms. Are we really surprised that their listenerships, believing what they are told, react with such vitriol?

Intentionally disrupting town halls does perturb me, as it's designed to get media attention ("Local citizens fed up over health care reform talk!"), but what angers me even more is the gross misrepresentation of what the prospective bills entail / what is actually at stake.

 

At some point I'm going to have to cross reference which posters in here cheered on the arrest of a black man for being irate on his own property but have no problem with wingnut mobs throwing tantrums in public forums.

The results should be interesting.

 

Well you are right in that left leaning protestors shout down speakers...probably where the right learned it from truth be told. I will admit that has happened. But I haven't seen an entire political movement bent around shouting down congressional members at every town event they plan. That's what i am referring to but am not being very detailed in what i mean.

I agree with you that it can be used to control the discussion and there by it's not really a debate. And that's why you have to make these things bi-partisan in which both sides set-up the rules and can invite people. That's the only truly effective way to make these things work.

We can have presidential debates without everyday americans screaming their heads off...why can't we do it at a local level? I would never attend a town hall meeting run by one political party - i'd just assume it was theatre and not worth my time. But if they had town hall meeting in which both parties were involved in then that would be awesome. Why can't a town's mayor invite congressmen to explain their stances on health care to their community?

Because it's not about creating understanding and empowering voters, it's about treating them like sheep. The dems run their infomercial, and the repubs respond with their fear mongering and disruptive tactics. It's just a bunch of bull excrement (are you happy dada, no cursing!).

 

Couldn't they all just get together and have a tea party instead?

 

Help.

Assuming by angry, you don't mean violent. There's a difference, in my opinion. It's been my experience that sometimes people don't protest and get involved until they get angry, or until they get fed up. There's nothing wrong with that. It's violent protests that hurt the process, MLK knew this and led the right way with peaceful protests.

 

Now we have our first death threat against a Congressman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/brad-miller-death-threat-_n_254493.html