Dems Afraid to Meet with Constituents

[MaggieMae]

no, i said nothing like that. i said that her counterpart, by which i assume you mean her opponent, has no constituents by definition. the other rep from nh is also a dem. they have one gop senator, judd gregg.

the other guy did it too is still a weak excuse for not doing the right thing.

....but accusing the Dem of not holding town halls, knowing full well that ther GOP senator has held none IS doing the right thing? Help me understand this logic, del?

i'm not accusing anyone of anything. i posted a link from the uber right wing new york times that reported, assuming the reporter is telling the truth, facts. i offered my opinion on those facts and solicited other opinions.

i have no knowledge of gregg's current activities with his constituents, but in the past he has always been pretty accessible. as i said previously, the other guy did it to is a very weak excuse, especially if you don't know for certain that the other guy did, in fact, do it too.

Judd Gregg isn't running again.

 

[MaggieMae]

profiles in courage, indeed.

"In New Hampshire, where open political meetings are deeply ingrained in the state’s traditions, Representative Carol Shea-Porter’s campaign Web site had this message for visitors: “No upcoming events scheduled. Please visit us again soon!”

Ms. Shea-Porter, a Democrat, attended a state convention of letter carriers on Saturday, but she did not hold a town-hall-style meeting during the Congressional recess. In 2006, when she was an underdog candidate for the House, she often showed up at the meetings of her Republican rival, Representative Jeb Bradley, to question him about Iraq."

Political Memo - To Avoid Voter Rage, Democrats Skip Town Halls - NYTimes.com

And that's a NY Times article!

Note to members of Congress: Listen to your constituents next time.

Note to dummies: The New York Times is "liberal" on its opinion pages, period.

 

[MaggieMae]

They're probably still having nightmares over what they faced during the town hall meeting's over health care--- Now that they passed it against their constitutents wishes--I imagine public appearances are totally out of the question.

You would be correct. Why should they bother when the only ones attending might be screamers who are totally uninterested in listening to anyone but themselves?

Didn't you mean to say "why should they attend and listen to anyone who disagrees with them?"

"Now listen John, the election is over, so umm shut up and do what I tell you "

Can I presume you were in a coma last summer?

 

[Tech_Esq]

This is occuring all over the country as a result of the people moving back to the founding principles of our nation. Constituents in all districts are embracing the views of our founding fathers and rejecting the far-left radical agenda that has been advanced for the past year and a half. If this movement continues, America can be restored.

Incredible how the right-wing ideologues actually believe they can take the country backwards. All of that stuff makes for nice platitudes, but ignore reality.

It really depends on the court doesn't it?

If the court finds it in its heart to overturn 2 cases, about 35% of the Federal Government and what it does will disappear over night. In particular, if United States v. Darby Lumber Company and Wickard v. Filburn are overturned, it will be a new day.

The cases preliminary to a potential (at least partial) overturn of Darby are working their way through the courts now. We'll see what happens there. These are definitely the cases with the most potential for an overturn to happen in decades.

Wickard will be put to the test with the Health Care law and the states' opposition to it. Pendulums swing back and forth. I think we are seeing the high water mark of this direction of the swing. What I find interesting is the conservatives have never really push their agenda yet. Not in the same philosophical way the Social-Democrats have. It will be interesting to see if this last push to the left has given conservatives the energy to push their philosophical agenda finally or if they will be like to Tory party of England. Labour Lite.

 

[MaggieMae]

They're probably still having nightmares over what they faced during the town hall meeting's over health care--- Now that they passed it against their constitutents wishes--I imagine public appearances are totally out of the question.

You would be correct. Why should they bother when the only ones attending might be screamers who are totally uninterested in listening to anyone but themselves?

Interestingly, last summer I happened to be listening to CSPAN on my way home (yes it's an illness, but I'm that kind of sicko) and they were broadcasting a town hall meeting down in Louisiana. The member was a democrat, but he was against passing health care. It was a VERY well attended meeting, but I didn't hear anything but applause and cheers from the crowd.

So, it doesn't seem to be related to party affiliation nor town hall meetings. Maybe it's just when a member is being really, really stupid and their constituents want to set them straight on the matter. I think even more so when it involves taxing and spending them into absolute oblivion. For some reason this behavior tends to evoke an emotional response. Go figure.

I can't remember, were you for or against allowing all the anti-war protesters that used to show up at town hall meetings yelling at the Rep. to "Stop this illegal war."

It's true that the health care debate was extremely passionate and emotional, and rightfully so. However, what I saw (also a C-span junkie, by the way) were throngs of people who ONLY wanted to holler as loud as they could, in unison sometimes, carrying ugly signs and otherwise intimidating the speaker by extremely insulting and childish behavior. I also come from a state where town meetings are historically useful and functional occasions, not screamfests. I was embarrassed that this nation seems to have bred a bunch of yahoos when it comes to civic (and civil) procedure. And yes, I recall the anti-war demonstrators who were few compared to the spectacles we witnessed last summer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

profiles in courage, indeed.

"In New Hampshire, where open political meetings are deeply ingrained in the state’s traditions, Representative Carol Shea-Porter’s campaign Web site had this message for visitors: “No upcoming events scheduled. Please visit us again soon!”

Ms. Shea-Porter, a Democrat, attended a state convention of letter carriers on Saturday, but she did not hold a town-hall-style meeting during the Congressional recess. In 2006, when she was an underdog candidate for the House, she often showed up at the meetings of her Republican rival, Representative Jeb Bradley, to question him about Iraq."

Political Memo - To Avoid Voter Rage, Democrats Skip Town Halls - NYTimes.com

I thought ObamaCare was good medicine for everyone? What the ******* ****?

 

[ConHog]

You would be correct. Why should they bother when the only ones attending might be screamers who are totally uninterested in listening to anyone but themselves?

Interestingly, last summer I happened to be listening to CSPAN on my way home (yes it's an illness, but I'm that kind of sicko) and they were broadcasting a town hall meeting down in Louisiana. The member was a democrat, but he was against passing health care. It was a VERY well attended meeting, but I didn't hear anything but applause and cheers from the crowd.

So, it doesn't seem to be related to party affiliation nor town hall meetings. Maybe it's just when a member is being really, really stupid and their constituents want to set them straight on the matter. I think even more so when it involves taxing and spending them into absolute oblivion. For some reason this behavior tends to evoke an emotional response. Go figure.

I can't remember, were you for or against allowing all the anti-war protesters that used to show up at town hall meetings yelling at the Rep. to "Stop this illegal war."

It's true that the health care debate was extremely passionate and emotional, and rightfully so. However, what I saw (also a C-span junkie, by the way) were throngs of people who ONLY wanted to holler as loud as they could, in unison sometimes, carrying ugly signs and otherwise intimidating the speaker by extremely insulting and childish behavior. I also come from a state where town meetings are historically useful and functional occasions, not screamfests. I was embarrassed that this nation seems to have bred a bunch of yahoos when it comes to civic (and civil) procedure. And yes, I recall the anti-war demonstrators who were few compared to the spectacles we witnessed last summer.

That's really nothing new. Look back at footage from the 60's and 70's where anti war protesters were loud and obnoxious. Perhaps we just admit that those who are dumbest are usually loudest no matter there political ideology and move on.

Heck, we even see that at school board meetings here in my local town. The only people that ever show up are complainers and they are rude, loud, and obnoxious, and generally don't have anything to add to a discussion except complaints.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats don't give a **** about what the People want, they only care about what Obama tells them to care about.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You would be correct. Why should they bother when the only ones attending might be screamers who are totally uninterested in listening to anyone but themselves?

Interestingly, last summer I happened to be listening to CSPAN on my way home (yes it's an illness, but I'm that kind of sicko) and they were broadcasting a town hall meeting down in Louisiana. The member was a democrat, but he was against passing health care. It was a VERY well attended meeting, but I didn't hear anything but applause and cheers from the crowd.

So, it doesn't seem to be related to party affiliation nor town hall meetings. Maybe it's just when a member is being really, really stupid and their constituents want to set them straight on the matter. I think even more so when it involves taxing and spending them into absolute oblivion. For some reason this behavior tends to evoke an emotional response. Go figure.

I can't remember, were you for or against allowing all the anti-war protesters that used to show up at town hall meetings yelling at the Rep. to "Stop this illegal war."

It's true that the health care debate was extremely passionate and emotional, and rightfully so. However, what I saw (also a C-span junkie, by the way) were throngs of people who ONLY wanted to holler as loud as they could, in unison sometimes, carrying ugly signs and otherwise intimidating the speaker by extremely insulting and childish behavior. I also come from a state where town meetings are historically useful and functional occasions, not screamfests. I was embarrassed that this nation seems to have bred a bunch of yahoos when it comes to civic (and civil) procedure. And yes, I recall the anti-war demonstrators who were few compared to the spectacles we witnessed last summer.

Wah wah wahhh too ******* bad. If the Congresscritters don't like the voice of the People then they picked the wrong profession

 

[VaYank5150]

Interestingly, last summer I happened to be listening to CSPAN on my way home (yes it's an illness, but I'm that kind of sicko) and they were broadcasting a town hall meeting down in Louisiana. The member was a democrat, but he was against passing health care. It was a VERY well attended meeting, but I didn't hear anything but applause and cheers from the crowd.

So, it doesn't seem to be related to party affiliation nor town hall meetings. Maybe it's just when a member is being really, really stupid and their constituents want to set them straight on the matter. I think even more so when it involves taxing and spending them into absolute oblivion. For some reason this behavior tends to evoke an emotional response. Go figure.

I can't remember, were you for or against allowing all the anti-war protesters that used to show up at town hall meetings yelling at the Rep. to "Stop this illegal war."

It's true that the health care debate was extremely passionate and emotional, and rightfully so. However, what I saw (also a C-span junkie, by the way) were throngs of people who ONLY wanted to holler as loud as they could, in unison sometimes, carrying ugly signs and otherwise intimidating the speaker by extremely insulting and childish behavior. I also come from a state where town meetings are historically useful and functional occasions, not screamfests. I was embarrassed that this nation seems to have bred a bunch of yahoos when it comes to civic (and civil) procedure. And yes, I recall the anti-war demonstrators who were few compared to the spectacles we witnessed last summer.

Wah wah wahhh too ******* bad. If the Congresscritters don't like the voice of the People then they picked the wrong profession

So, are you trying to say that the point of town halls should be to simply let people vent and NOT provide answers?

 

[MaggieMae]

Incredible how the right-wing ideologues actually believe they can take the country backwards. All of that stuff makes for nice platitudes, but ignore reality.

It really depends on the court doesn't it?

If the court finds it in its heart to overturn 2 cases, about 35% of the Federal Government and what it does will disappear over night. In particular, if United States v. Darby Lumber Company and Wickard v. Filburn are overturned, it will be a new day.

The cases preliminary to a potential (at least partial) overturn of Darby are working their way through the courts now. We'll see what happens there. These are definitely the cases with the most potential for an overturn to happen in decades.

Wickard will be put to the test with the Health Care law and the states' opposition to it. Pendulums swing back and forth. I think we are seeing the high water mark of this direction of the swing. What I find interesting is the conservatives have never really push their agenda yet. Not in the same philosophical way the Social-Democrats have. It will be interesting to see if this last push to the left has given conservatives the energy to push their philosophical agenda finally or if they will be like to Tory party of England. Labour Lite.

The lawsuit(s) are a waste of time and money:

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

First Posted: 03-24-10 01:29 PM | Updated: 05-24-10 05:12 AM

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

"So let us review how the waiver language works now, because my reading of what we have in the bill now is, if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria -- particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system -- they can do it without an individual mandate," the senator said at the time. "And can I ask counsel, is that a correct reading of the Waiver Amendment that I offered the chairman has accepted at this point?"

The counsel replied: "Yes."

"The individual mandate has always been one of the most contentious aspects of health reform. I think every United States Senator believes that citizens should show some personal responsibility. That's something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately, an individual mandate can mean something different, and that's why the issue has been so contentious," Wyden said. "But counsel has now indicated -- and it was in line with what I thought we had drafted -- if you can meet the requirements of the waiver in the mark, you can do it without an individual mandate."

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

 

[Tech_Esq]

You would be correct. Why should they bother when the only ones attending might be screamers who are totally uninterested in listening to anyone but themselves?

Interestingly, last summer I happened to be listening to CSPAN on my way home (yes it's an illness, but I'm that kind of sicko) and they were broadcasting a town hall meeting down in Louisiana. The member was a democrat, but he was against passing health care. It was a VERY well attended meeting, but I didn't hear anything but applause and cheers from the crowd.

So, it doesn't seem to be related to party affiliation nor town hall meetings. Maybe it's just when a member is being really, really stupid and their constituents want to set them straight on the matter. I think even more so when it involves taxing and spending them into absolute oblivion. For some reason this behavior tends to evoke an emotional response. Go figure.

I can't remember, were you for or against allowing all the anti-war protesters that used to show up at town hall meetings yelling at the Rep. to "Stop this illegal war."

It's true that the health care debate was extremely passionate and emotional, and rightfully so. However, what I saw (also a C-span junkie, by the way) were throngs of people who ONLY wanted to holler as loud as they could, in unison sometimes, carrying ugly signs and otherwise intimidating the speaker by extremely insulting and childish behavior. I also come from a state where town meetings are historically useful and functional occasions, not screamfests. I was embarrassed that this nation seems to have bred a bunch of yahoos when it comes to civic (and civil) procedure. And yes, I recall the anti-war demonstrators who were few compared to the spectacles we witnessed last summer.

A few notes on your comment:

Anti-war protesters - perhaps few but their actions were no less embarrassing than some of the people who attended town hall meetings.

"bred a bunch of yahoos" - I will note that in many counties this activity would have broken down into violence not screaming. With the exception of when the SEIU thugs showed up to "provide protection" there was no violence. (Shades of the Stones hiring the Hell's Angels).

Was there bad behavior. Yes, I think in some cases there was bad behavior. But, I must ask, have you ever sent your congress person a well thought out letter only to receive in response a form letter laying out why the Congress person is voting the opposite way on the issue. Have you ever receive 4 or 6 of them? I have. It kinda makes one feel like maybe the message isn't being received and maybe the Congress person is like that proverbial "Missouri mule" and doesn't pay attention until they've been hit across the head with a 2 x 4. That's the lens that I view the town halls with. Having ignored the people up until that point, the people felt it was time to get the attention of the mule headed representatives. So it really was never going to be about a "calm discussion of the issues."

 

[Woyzeck]

Out of curiosity, how many elected Republicans are holding town hall meetings? Porter's what, a representative? How many Republican representatives have been holding town hall meetings?

You want a complete list? Here's just a few for starters Kevin McCarthy, Peggy Mast, Connie O'Brien, Owen Donohoet, Sandra Bohne, and Jana Goodman. Not to mention my representatve Ron Paul, who's also had some town hall meetings.

Were they all well-received? Or was it an angry slam-fest like the NY Times article makes it appear the Democrats are undergoing?

 

[MaggieMae]

Interestingly, last summer I happened to be listening to CSPAN on my way home (yes it's an illness, but I'm that kind of sicko) and they were broadcasting a town hall meeting down in Louisiana. The member was a democrat, but he was against passing health care. It was a VERY well attended meeting, but I didn't hear anything but applause and cheers from the crowd.

So, it doesn't seem to be related to party affiliation nor town hall meetings. Maybe it's just when a member is being really, really stupid and their constituents want to set them straight on the matter. I think even more so when it involves taxing and spending them into absolute oblivion. For some reason this behavior tends to evoke an emotional response. Go figure.

I can't remember, were you for or against allowing all the anti-war protesters that used to show up at town hall meetings yelling at the Rep. to "Stop this illegal war."

It's true that the health care debate was extremely passionate and emotional, and rightfully so. However, what I saw (also a C-span junkie, by the way) were throngs of people who ONLY wanted to holler as loud as they could, in unison sometimes, carrying ugly signs and otherwise intimidating the speaker by extremely insulting and childish behavior. I also come from a state where town meetings are historically useful and functional occasions, not screamfests. I was embarrassed that this nation seems to have bred a bunch of yahoos when it comes to civic (and civil) procedure. And yes, I recall the anti-war demonstrators who were few compared to the spectacles we witnessed last summer.

That's really nothing new. Look back at footage from the 60's and 70's where anti war protesters were loud and obnoxious. Perhaps we just admit that those who are dumbest are usually loudest no matter there political ideology and move on.

Heck, we even see that at school board meetings here in my local town. The only people that ever show up are complainers and they are rude, loud, and obnoxious, and generally don't have anything to add to a discussion except complaints.

I don't know where you live, but I once was a member of my school board, and anyone who started yelling was asked politely to tone it down or please leave. Everyone with a like mind shut up. Our normal procedure was to allow a person 3-5 minutes to make his/her case, and that was respected. They knew the rules before they arrived.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Incredible how the right-wing ideologues actually believe they can take the country backwards. All of that stuff makes for nice platitudes, but ignore reality.

It really depends on the court doesn't it?

If the court finds it in its heart to overturn 2 cases, about 35% of the Federal Government and what it does will disappear over night. In particular, if United States v. Darby Lumber Company and Wickard v. Filburn are overturned, it will be a new day.

The cases preliminary to a potential (at least partial) overturn of Darby are working their way through the courts now. We'll see what happens there. These are definitely the cases with the most potential for an overturn to happen in decades.

Wickard will be put to the test with the Health Care law and the states' opposition to it. Pendulums swing back and forth. I think we are seeing the high water mark of this direction of the swing. What I find interesting is the conservatives have never really push their agenda yet. Not in the same philosophical way the Social-Democrats have. It will be interesting to see if this last push to the left has given conservatives the energy to push their philosophical agenda finally or if they will be like to Tory party of England. Labour Lite.

The lawsuit(s) are a waste of time and money:

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

First Posted: 03-24-10 01:29 PM | Updated: 05-24-10 05:12 AM

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

"So let us review how the waiver language works now, because my reading of what we have in the bill now is, if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria -- particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system -- they can do it without an individual mandate," the senator said at the time. "And can I ask counsel, is that a correct reading of the Waiver Amendment that I offered the chairman has accepted at this point?"

The counsel replied: "Yes."

"The individual mandate has always been one of the most contentious aspects of health reform. I think every United States Senator believes that citizens should show some personal responsibility. That's something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately, an individual mandate can mean something different, and that's why the issue has been so contentious," Wyden said. "But counsel has now indicated -- and it was in line with what I thought we had drafted -- if you can meet the requirements of the waiver in the mark, you can do it without an individual mandate."

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

Nice of him to offer his opinion, but let's just go ahead with the court case for shits and giggles. I'm paying for it and I say "Let's go!"

Virginia is first in line. We filed suit before Obama's signature was dry. The other 14 states filing suit have to stand in line. Democrats don't care about wasting money so I don't get his point anyway.

 

[VaYank5150]

Cuccinelli is a fruit basket and is embarrassing the entire state of VA. McDonnell has so far proven to be a rookie and can't seem to get out of his way. I do not know WHY I voted for either one of these idiots, now...

 

[devilsadvocate]

People are seeming to neglect that Congress is in session and that these represenatives are doing what they were elected to do. Attend sessions in Congress. Shea-Porter has previously met with her constituents, both supporters and non-supporters, and faced criticism in the face, along with support. But now she is facing criticism for not holding events, and instead working in Washington. There are other ways for constituents to tell them their opinions on American politics to the Congresswoman. I would rather my Congresswoman be in Washington doing what she was elected to do, represent our state of New Hampshire, than be in New Hampshire all the time where she is unable to affect politics in Washington in a way that would benefit New Hampshirites.

 

[MaggieMae]

Interestingly, last summer I happened to be listening to CSPAN on my way home (yes it's an illness, but I'm that kind of sicko) and they were broadcasting a town hall meeting down in Louisiana. The member was a democrat, but he was against passing health care. It was a VERY well attended meeting, but I didn't hear anything but applause and cheers from the crowd.

So, it doesn't seem to be related to party affiliation nor town hall meetings. Maybe it's just when a member is being really, really stupid and their constituents want to set them straight on the matter. I think even more so when it involves taxing and spending them into absolute oblivion. For some reason this behavior tends to evoke an emotional response. Go figure.

I can't remember, were you for or against allowing all the anti-war protesters that used to show up at town hall meetings yelling at the Rep. to "Stop this illegal war."

It's true that the health care debate was extremely passionate and emotional, and rightfully so. However, what I saw (also a C-span junkie, by the way) were throngs of people who ONLY wanted to holler as loud as they could, in unison sometimes, carrying ugly signs and otherwise intimidating the speaker by extremely insulting and childish behavior. I also come from a state where town meetings are historically useful and functional occasions, not screamfests. I was embarrassed that this nation seems to have bred a bunch of yahoos when it comes to civic (and civil) procedure. And yes, I recall the anti-war demonstrators who were few compared to the spectacles we witnessed last summer.

A few notes on your comment:

Anti-war protesters - perhaps few but their actions were no less embarrassing than some of the people who attended town hall meetings.

"bred a bunch of yahoos" - I will note that in many counties this activity would have broken down into violence not screaming. With the exception of when the SEIU thugs showed up to "provide protection" there was no violence. (Shades of the Stones hiring the Hell's Angels).

Was there bad behavior. Yes, I think in some cases there was bad behavior. But, I must ask, have you ever sent your congress person a well thought out letter only to receive in response a form letter laying out why the Congress person is voting the opposite way on the issue. Have you ever receive 4 or 6 of them? I have. It kinda makes one feel like maybe the message isn't being received and maybe the Congress person is like that proverbial "Missouri mule" and doesn't pay attention until they've been hit across the head with a 2 x 4. That's the lens that I view the town halls with. Having ignored the people up until that point, the people felt it was time to get the attention of the mule headed representatives. So it really was never going to be about a "calm discussion of the issues."

You make some valid points. Yes, I have had generic replys to emails and handwritten/typewriten letters to my representatives in the past, and it is very frustrating. In fact, just a month ago, I emailed our newest member of the House regarding the signing of the PACK ACT, which bans cigarettes from being sent through the mail, and I got a generic response that would have been generated back before the bill was only a proposal!! I was royally pissed, and I fired off another email telling him so. It is their staffers who do that, and it's high time their "bosses" started checking what the help is up to. On the other hand, I have written to Senator Sanders (previously Congressman Sanders, and before that, Mayor Sanders) on numerous occasions and while it make take a little longer for a reply, he ALWAYS got back to me, PERSONALLY. Ah, but he's allegedly a so-called card-carrying "Socialist." Go figure.

Oh, and off topic a bit, it was Bernie Sanders who has injected the requirement in the financial reform bill to audit the Federal Reserve, finally. Rather surprising for a liberal, don't you think?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Cuccinelli is a fruit basket and is embarrassing the entire state of VA. McDonnell has so far proven to be a rookie and can't seem to get out of his way. I do not know WHY I voted for either one of these idiots, now...

Nope you are wrong about both.

 

[Sheldon]

Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts.

For incumbents of both parties facing challenging re-election bids, few things receive more scrutiny than how, when and where they interact with voters. Many members of Congress err on the side of being visible, but not too visible, and make only a few public appearances while they are back in their districts.

“It’s dramatically different this break than it was in August of last year,” Mr. Kratovil said in an interview after he finished speaking about financial regulatory legislation. “At town halls, there was a group of people who were there to disrupt, purely politically driven, not there because they wanted to get answers or discuss the issues.”

Mr. Kratovil said seeing voters in their workplace, or in casual settings like soccer fields, actually provided a broader sampling of public opinion than simply holding formal town-hall-style meetings, which often attract only political activists.

An examination of public schedules for dozens of members of Congress last week showed that more House Republicans held open meetings, including several in a series of forums called America Speaking Out, which is intended to help write the party’s agenda if it wins control of Congress in November.

Republicans have more to gain from townhall meetings. The party out of power does well to stir it up and make a jaded electorate an angry electorate. An angry voter is a motivated voter.

Democrats aren't holding town-hall meeting, but that doesn't preclude contact with constituents. On one hand, I can't blame them for basically saying "eh, **** this I'm not dealing with those crazies and their nazi signs", and on the other hand I think they just need to change their diapers and realize this is the byproduct of an angsty and divided electorate that is unsettled by the economy.

I think they should have the meetings, and when confronted by the peeps who take their marching orders from Fox, just respond with a detailed answer in a calm and professional manner.

I bet those meetings last year were nothing compared to the early days of this country.