Right-Wingers Ambush and Attack Dem Reps at Town Halls -- and It's All Coordinated by Outsiders
Numerous sources are reporting coordinated attacks on town hall meetings by right-wingers, including surrounding one representative and threatening him to the point that police officers had to rescue him from the mob and escort him to his car.
Grassroots anger? Nope -- it's all fake anger designed to attract media attention and intimidate our elected officials -- and it's coordinated by lobbyists and based on a memo on how to break up a town hall:
Here are the three principles being followed by these astro-turfers:
- Artificially inflate your numbers.
- Be disruptive early and often.
- Aim to rattle him, not have an intelligent debate.
So, when you see these tactics being used against YOUR rep, you know where they came from. And you know what they want, and it's not democracy. All they care about is drowning out YOUR elected rep with THEIR rhetoric.
And, if you hear that "John Yarmuth refuses to attend our town hall," as was recently said by one local activist, then you'll know why. John will discuss anything with anyone at any time -- but the key is "discuss." He won't walk into an ambush, and he won't get into a screaming match.
Share this with friends, so they know the truth as well about these disruptive tricks. And let's ask ourselves: is this what our democratic process has come down to? The only acceptable form of discussion is screaming and breaking up a meeting?
Saturday, August 1, 2009 at 9:00PM
Reader Comments (8)
"Fake anger" Bruce? Trust me, for months I've been up to my butt in grass roots, no one's paying me to be angry. Its REAL anger Bruce. Who is paying these fake angry people that you're tweeting about? I can show you evidence of AARP filling town meetings during W's town halls to defeat medicare reforms, that would have been genuine improvements. ~ And it is AARP which continues to deceive seniors in favor of Obamacare. Luring trusting seniors, who have believed that AARP is working in their best interest, it has failed to raise an alarm and allows them to march to their own destruction. Page 425 of the Health Kill bill. Have you read the bill? Its the "Granny Killers" section.
This is REAL ANGER Bruce. And anyone who tries to spin this anger into some "astro turfed" emotional show isn't going to succeed in getting the stink off themeselves FOREVER!!
Artificially inflate the numbers Bruce? Every email or letter I get in response to my calls and emails, chants..."47 million people uninsured". But that's just NOT true. Here's the break down according to the last census...16 million people can afford insurance and don't want to carry it. 8.4 million people 18-25years old don't want it because they feel they don't need it. 12.6 million are ILLEGAL ALIENS...that's illegal. As in, not here legally!! 9.4 million are between jobs and currently are not covered.
8 million are children, who are actually covered, but their parents haven't signed them up and the 3.5 million adults, elligable for gov't health programs, but have not signed up.
Please explain to me how tactics seem to loathe are described in the handbook written by liberal Saul Alinsky, "Rules For Radicals", are okay for community organizers like ACORN,and the UNIONs? Tactics taught by the biggest organizer, Barak Obama himself, after learning from his friend and mentor Wm. Ayers...yet this approach is considered "threatening and disruptive" when used by others?
You are simply parroting things you've read on other blogs. You've created an op-ed piece and feel proud that you have warned your peeps. But, I promise you, that I can calmly match and expose each and every one of the false concepts mentioned in your article.
You wrote: "let's ask ourselves: is this what our democratic process has come down to? The only acceptable form of discussion is screaming and breaking up a meeting?"
Let me answer that. The majority party has litterally shut out the other party from all deliberation and discussion since January. That's not democracy Bruce. And we know this, because lots of us watch C-span, and actually witness this democracy of yours in action. Also, with YouTube, very little goes un-noticed.
I'm so weary of folks like yourself claiming that what is happening with the grassroots movement is a 'product' of lobbyists.
As though people who don't think like you are some how too stupid to understand for themselves what's happening before their very eyes. And could never be so passionate as to join together in the hundreds of thousands without being paid, or bussed in, or manipulated, or beholden to a union. After calling me, a total stranger to you, a liar and a dupe, and a product of an "outsider" organizer...you imply that I'm destryong democracy too? Read the health care bill Bruce, start reading more perspectives than only those like politico.com, you might be surprised at what's really happening in the hearts of many of us 'fake angry' people.
Try starting here, to see why we might feel betrayed... www.socializedhealth.blogspot.com
And here's a video to share with Congressman Yarmuth, who claimed that single-payer is not the not so secret plan in Obamacare.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E
Sue -- thanks for stopping by! I'm not going to answer your long (and mostly well-written) post point by point, but I will point out a few things.
First of all -- I consider a town hall meeting a different animal than a rally or a campaign event. Town halls are for information sharing and discussion. Sending in the brownshirts to break up the meeting is wrong. You ask why such tactics are okay for the left and not for the right? Show me where I said they were okay for the left.
There is a place for such tactics, typically when you have no other way to make your voice heard. But even then, the most effective action is civil disobedience, not rioting. Ghandi proved it, as did MLK. I have yet to see very many activists, right or left, be willing to be arrested while practicing peaceful civil disobedience.
If you're angry, great -- you seem to be expressing it quite well. Once you get past your anger, though, you might find that you and I could agree on some things.
As for being shut out -- if you're following the debate on health care, you know that Baucus is compromising so much with the Republicans that he is in danger of being removed from leadership. From where I sit, it is the Republicans who have no interest in either bipartisanship or trying to do what's right for the American people.
And that, in the long run, may be the biggest difference between you and me: our view of the promise of America. Yours is of rugged individualism, mine is of community. You see each person as responsible only for themselves, while I see us as part of a shared responsibility.
There are times when your view is more appropriate, and times when mine is. Now is a time for us to help each other, to be more community and less "you're on your own." As long as you and I don't agree about that, we probably won't agree about much of anything.
Thanks, again, for stopping by and reading and responding.
Bruce,
Thank you for your response.
I have to say that you seem to make a great many presumptions about people whom you do not know. The reason I remarked that you had printed "lies" is because you had posted this right at the top of your article:
"Grassroots anger? Nope -- it's all fake anger designed to attract media attention and intimidate our elected officials ." In one broad stroke, you discount all the frustration of plain old grassroot folks like me as being "fake". You don't say that some of the anger expressed may be justified, or real...you just state that "it's all fake anger". And then YOU get angry with me, and threaten to move me to your "dead file" because of how I responded to your false accusation?!
And that's just the begining of your article. You make accusations about there being "lobbyists", which believe me, there are times when it's tempting to think of having some big sugar daddy lobbyist group paying to take the load off. But no, its just plain folks, of all parties, doing whatever they can to get heard in Washington. And that's really the point...the frustration is rising because we are being ignored by our representatives. So there's another "untruth", that you so casually type into your blog. There are no "lobbyists" astro-turfing our activism.
I'm not going to go into a point by point, sense you did not do me the favor of doing so, but you see Bruce, in spite of what you presume to be the difference between you and me ideologically, you're wrong. You wrote: "in the long run, may be the biggest difference between you and me: our view of the promise of America. Yours is of rugged individualism, mine is of community. You see each person as responsible only for themselves, while I see us as part of a shared responsibility."
You lost credibility when you said "responsible ONLYfor themselves". I am not a 'rugged' anything. I passionately believe in the principles of personal liberties, personal responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, a strong work ethic and I believe that when the incentive to excell is denied, then all of society suffers, because it destroys the competition of the free market environment. AND, I believe in the importance of community, which means that we share responsibility to help one another. I do NOT however believe any one group in society is entitled to something at the expense of others.
It's easy enough to imagine yourself a benevolent progressive, until you actually must sacrifice yourself for the community. We've both heard the give a fish/teach to fish analogy. Liberals...uh, progressives are more apt to 'give' fish...and from other people's buckets....while conservatives are more likely to teach a person to fish, and give him a bite of their own fish in the mean time. In the end one group ends up making people dependent on them for fish, while the other group leaves fishermen behind, teaching others how to fish.
I don't advocate rioting, nor have you shown evidence where angry riots have broken out at town halls. If some shouting qualifies as a riot in your book, then let's hope you never have to see a real one! Legislators are fearful, because they know that they are voting against the majority of their constituents. They know that they'll be facing angry constituents, because they have been getting calls and faxes, emails, and carrier pigeons with notes from constituents for months...which they have been ignoring. Hence the frustration>anger>shouts.
Oh, and before I close...if from where you sit, you have not taken the time to read all of the various Republican options suggested and left un-read by the Democrats, then I think you need to stop sitting there. If you're interested, I can give you links to these other plans.
P.S., as far as setting the stage for fear, did you see the video on youtube when Obama's caravan arrived at a high school in some little town last week, while taking the Obamacare show on the road, and one of the vehicles was an SUV with automatic weapons sticking out all the windows? A message I'm sure to the small band of grassroots protestors carrying their home made signs against government rationed health care. (They were just signs, not bombs) You got yourself a gangstah Bruce!
I don't know who you are, and have never read your articles before, but you are very misguided, my friend. The libs always try to control the media. Well, we are getting sick of your lies. We are not organized groups, we are individuals who are sick of people thinking they are better than us.
We are not falling for these attacks and are beginning to rise up against people like you and speak our minds. The libs do it all the time, but when people who are not leftist try to speak their minds they get attacked. You can't have it both ways.
I do not want healthcare reform, and nobody I know wants it either. If you drink Obama's Kool Aid and believe his lies, then you will have your taxes raised, be told what car to drive, what to eat, etc-- He wants to control everything.
I am just saying, think about what he is really doing to our country. Be more skeptical, because if you don't, you will not recognize our country soon. Thanks you.
Ooo, I do believe I got some people stirred up! That's okay -- calling me a liar for reprinting documents from their side just makes them look silly.
As for not wanting people to speak their mind -- these people really, really need to learn to read. NOWHERE did I say they shouldn't speak their mind. (Although in some cases, speaking their mind will result in really, really short sentences.) The hateful thing I was pointing out, and that I think is a disgrace to democracy, is taking marching orders from an outside agency in order to intentionally disrupt and destroy a town hall meeting.
As for Kool Aid -- there's a special on Glenn Beck Lemon Juice on aisle 4.
Still no response to my questions? Just more rhetoric? You accuse others of cutting and pasting and I can post link after link from libs like you with exactly the same words on their blogs. All released on the SAME DAY as this one. And, since I am signed up on Obama's site, I got the email and marching orders too.
Unlike Jen up there...who is equating Obamacare with health care reform...I do support genuine reforms. Obamacare is NOT reform, it is destruction of health care. And seeing that you made your comment about "taking marching orders" from an "outside agency" on the 5th, only to have your great leader sick his SEIU goons on American citizens peaceably exercising their right to free speech and a redress with the government...I suppose you would feel a bit embarassed. But, oh yeah, you're a "progressive", which means that you can easily shift reality to fit your perception of reality.
I suppose you've never taken note of real disruptive forces at meetings, like the Code Pink girls, and the econuts, and ACORN/SEIU thugs. Interesting that frustrated grannies are called the "angry mob", while giant, burly black men in purple SEIU shirts struting up to citizens with homemade signs, and screaming at them for having their sign are what? What do you call them Bruce?
I could see by your Facebook avatar that you're near middle aged at least. Well, here are some highlights from HR 3200 that may interest you...
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.
PG 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
PG425 L22-25, 426 L1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.
PG 429 Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
PG 429 Lines 10-12 “advance care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government.
PG 429 Lines 13-25 The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order. Logan’s Run anyone?
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.
PG 432 Lines 18-21 The Government will publish “quality measures” for individual’s end of life in Federal Register.
Fact check it against the original text...http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf
Meant to leave this too...http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080314_121054.htm
It's a great article in Business Week talking about the strategy of Asto-turfing activism developed by David Axlerod. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
OK, Sue, I went and read the references you listed -- downloaded the bill, read your points by page and line, and read the cross-references as well. And I must say, you do a great job of making MY case.
The section you deathers have turned on its ear is exactly what has been explained over and over -- it is modifying the Social Security act that founded and defines Medicare to ALLOW end-of-life consultations to be covered by Medicare. Currently, if you want to discuss with your doctor the treatments you want at the end of your life, and you are on Medicare, that service of the doctor is not covered. This section adds it to the coverage.
And of course, any time you provide coverage for a medical treatment, you have to define it five ways to Sunday to try to prevent fraud. That's what ALL of those other references are trying to do: define what is covered and what isn't.
All of your so-called "points" are intentional misreadings of the bill. You are trying to stir up a firestorm where what you thought was a fire was actually a flashlight. You should go by Emily, because you and the other deathers are like Emily Latella on SNL -- hear something wrong and go completely crazy about it, only to say "never mind" when you realize you misread it. Except you have so much hatred for Obama that you will continue to spread distortions about anything he tries to do. At least Emily Latella stopped when she discovered she was wrong.
I will give you credit, though, for your second link -- it's a good article, and about a side of Axelrod I did not know about. I cannot abide astro-turfing in any form; I find it duplicitous, sleazy, and wrong on just about every level. So, on that score, you and I agree.
Finally, here's a link back to you, one all activists on both sides of the aisle should bookmark: Sourcewatch. I've linked to the story on ASK, which quotes the BW article you linked to.