The Townhall Protesters Failed

I think many of the town hall protesters have failed. They had a couple of good victories early on and the amount of absurdities that are linked to the concept of rationing health care caught the Dems off guard, but ultimately the Dems won and the protester don't even know.

The two points most of the screaming, anger infused, mobs were upset about were "death panels" and deficits.

When it came to the topic of costs, the Democrats seemed prepared. It was a discussion they have had many times.

The conservative asks, "How are you going to pay for this?"

The Democrat says "Raise taxes on the rich. Oh and control costs."

The conservative gets angry and goes on a rant about taxes. Then sits down. Then another one walks up to the microphone.

And nothing else really happens. Sometimes someone gets thrown out or gets arrested. Normally people just stand outside yelling things, holding signs. Sometimes they throw food at a motorcade.

The town halls continue. The speeches get made. The party message is communicated. Normally the politician wins.

That did not happen this time. This time Betsy McCaughey and Sarah Palin changed the discussion from money and costs to death panels and rationed health care.

Government spending, euthanasia and gun rights, yup gun rights. How did gun rights get into this? Well isn't it obvious?

It wasn't obvious to me, at least not until the assault rifles started popping up. I didn't know just how bad the protesters thought things were going to getting. But that just may be my ignorance. I, like the Dems, should have seen it coming. It had been brewing for a while.

First, the conservatives lost power and leadership. Then the "birther" movement flows over some segment of the right. People in the fringes and some in the mainstream believed that the President was not born in the United States. There are the "Ron Paul Republican" that were already very annoyed by all the government spending, starting long before Bush leading into Obama's presidency.

But during the election process the The Ron Pauls didn't get along with the rest of the Republicans, they still don't really but they share the same fears and point of views with the rest of the party over the health care issue. They like many of the right feared that the US is headed completely in the wrong direction. The bailouts that Obama implemented were considered to be socialist, possibly because unlike Bush who didn't do anything but give the companies money, Obama wanted control over the money that was being spent, though one must admit that the control he has is not like a socialized country.

President Obama along with the bailout, comes out with the public option, though it wasn't Obama really it was Congress' proposal..

This is where things get confusing. At first the Dems were in favor of a single payer system, then changed their mind to public option. The difference? Well single payer is like the British and Canadian model toward running the game. It is socialized medicine. The government runs the hospitals.

Public option is when the government offers health care insurance, while still letting hospitals run hospitals and the insurance companies still run their companies etc.

Though there is a difference between the two, many in the conservative media still presented the argument as if the two were the same thing. Or that the public option would eventually lead into the single payer option. Both are just matters of opinion.

At the same time the Obama administration initiates the Cash for Clunkers program and that runs out of money in a week. This gave proof to the right that the same would happen to health care. There would be money shortages. And what would happen if there were money shortages? Well they'd start with denying old people health care. Though that is the reasoning, it can not work under the public option.

That may be true in the single payer option in other countries but I don't think that would happen in the US, our economy is much bigger than Canadian and British economies and like the Cash for Clunkers program, the US would just bring in more money to fund the health sector.

The gun issue still hasn't become part of the problem yet, but it will once Sarah Palin steps into the discussion. Before Palin though was McCaughey. Betsy McCaughey says based on her reading of the Democrat's proposal, that there would be panels or committees that would ration out health care, therefore the victims of their decisions would most likely become the old and disabled.

This is when the guns begin to come into it. Sarah Palin then calls these committees "death panels". Now for the liberal minded, imagine if Bush had come out and said that the government would have a program equivalent to death panels. I'm sure you would react with fear and loud protesting too, but maybe without the guns.

Gun rights activists, the kind that start and join militias, are very fearful and distrusting of the US government. They were already afraid that Obama was going to take their guns away before he was even elected. They were already afraid of that under Bush's administration.

There were rumors of FEMA prisons, Blackwater and US military training in US cities, other secrets prisons, along with all the other conspiracy theories that have never gone away but only gained popularity.

In hopes on gaining support, the conservative media and Republican leaders fed the fears. This brought the Republican Party together. The fear of socialism and fascism, recessions and depressions, death panels and euthanasia and ignorance and arrogance, united the "Ron Paul Republicans" with the Neo-Cons and the rest of the sanctions of the party.

This was enough, this meant war.

How could Obama even think that he could ruin our country like this? We believe in something in this country and it isn't what Obama believes in.

Glenn Beck was talking about the Rahm Emanuel's brother's research into denying health coverage for old people. Lou Dobbs was still part of the birthers movement, and many were joining in on debating the death panels and the rationing of health care.

Republican leaders, though to the media were admitting the crowds should be well mannered, were at the same time telling the public that their fears are not baseless but real. If they didn't, feed the fears, the GOP may have lost the new found unity among the right.

Another point that should be brought up is that this proposal is just that, a proposal. It was meant to be a discussion. The Dems were saying this is what we think health care reform should look like, what do think? And what they thought was "NO! You Nazis and Commies".

The protesters over reacted, the media over reacted and the Dems response was overtly vague. Not until Obama started his town halls did the Dems even try to fight the misinformation about their proposal, they just attacked the protesters. By that time misinformation had been repeated so many times that it was useless to discuss anything, it was always an argument. An argument that drew lines and escalated the "us vs. them" view. Where the us, were the conservatives, and the them, were the pro death panel Democrats.

Slowly though the topic returned to the issue of funds, but by this time the guns started showing up among the protestors. This gave the liberal media even more fodder to escalate the absurd accusations of the right, though the Democrats reacted better. They let the protesters protest, with or without guns.

Now to explain why I think the protesters lost and the Dems won is within the point made in the last sentence. So I'll repeat it, "They let the protesters protest".

In the beginning of this article, I mentioned that usually people got arrested or kicked out. That is usually how things went down during the Bush administration. The atmosphere has changed since then in America. There is more understanding toward dissonance.

Two examples I'd like to talk about are, the student in Florida that was "tazed" and the couple who were arrested for wearing t-shirts with BUSH written on it with a line going across the name. In both examples the protesters were arrested. This is what happened to people who protested prior to the Obama administration.

The student that was "tazed" was a conspiracy theory believer. The couple was just a pair that disagreed with Bush's policies. They were arrested, which proved there accusations to be true.

The gunmen were not arrested. They were allowed to stay. They were allowed to voice their opinions then allowed to go home without a police record.

Many of the protesters during the past couple of weeks were protesting issues bigger than just health insurance. They were attacking Obama's intentions. His intentions of being a fascist, a communist perhaps even a terrorist.

And they were proven wrong. Even after all of what has gone down, he is looking for a bipartisan bill. Even while his own supporters are telling him to cut his loses and try to pass a partisan bill, he is trying to go the bipartisan route. He is sticking with promises he made during his campaign.

Obama has respected the protestors' first amendment rights and second amendment rights. How can a person call him un-American? Imagine what would have happened if the left wing tried to walk near Bush with a gun, t-shirts with his name crossed off was enough to get you arrested, forget about a weapon, you might have gotten shot.

Worldwide, we are still dealing with the same enemies we had during the previous administration, the same dangers, yet the protesters, though being made fun of and ridiculed, are still allowed to stay.

My question to the people calling Obama un-American is, "Who's more un-American, Bush or Obama?"

I hope you seriously think about this question and your answer before answering it. Think about it with an unbiased, open mind.

If Obama was un-American, a fascist and a Communist his method of lawmaking and law enforcing would be different. The method would be closer to something that Iran or dare I say it, Bush would take.

Your guns are safe, your grannies are safe, your government is safe, your country is safe, your rights are safe. Now leave your guns at home when you come around the President of the United States of America. He's just trying to insure the millions of Americans that are uninsured, not send you to prison camps and take away your rights.

Your gun is disrespectful and beside the point.