As I've posted, I haven't been blogging much over the last few weeks.  I also haven't seen much or read much news, blogs, talk radio, etc. during this same time.  I have stopped in from time to time, read a few posts on some blogs and posted a few things of my own as well when I've had the time.  I have watched a few of the videos taken from various townhalls with Democrats over the past few weeks and was struck by a few things.

First, the passion people have for the issue of health care is refreshing.  It seems many folks are finally engaging the oppostition and taking the fight to them.  True to form, the opposition (the Democrats, SEIU and other such organizations) have rolled out talking points and accusations of racism, intimidation, "nazi-ism", and other such epithets.  They have also denigrated those attending these townhalls as "too well dressed to be protesters" and "the mob".  This action is typical of the Left.  They are on the defensive, they know it and care not for the obvious double standard they are employing against those on the Right.  Remember, all during the Bush administration dissent was "patriotic".  Now, not so much.

Anyway, I have noticed a few things in a lot of these videos from those who are engaging the Democrats which gives me pause.

If you are going to attend these townhalls, there is indeed a need to stand your ground and be firm.  But you are not going to make your case by constantly interrupting whomever the speaker or politician is.  Acting as a child and being deliberately confrontational is stupid as well.  This issue is a slam-dunk for our side and the Democrats and Left know it.  That is why they will denigrate you, call you names, and attempt to belittle you.  They are trying to get a rise out of you.  They want you to act the fool.  If they can get it on tape, it will be played ad-nauseum on the networks and on liberal websites.  The context won't matter, you should know this going in.  Do not fall into that trap and allow yourself to be played.  If you cannot be rational and even-tempered, then you may be better off either not going to these meetings, not speaking at these meetings, or taking along someone who can speak for you who will make your point perhaps more impartially than you could.

You cannot have a debate or claim you want one when you will not engage in one or allow yourself to be goaded into playing by the oppositions rules.

Also, this may sound mean, but if you aren't well spoken, you again may want to let someone else speak for you.  You should be able to make your point succinctly and factually.  Let the Democrat or liberal counter with platitudes and pap.  Stick to the FACTS.  Think through your questions beforehand and think about how you will respond.  Denigrating the Dem may give you a moments pleasure, but you will just be giving ammunition to those calling you an astroturfer.

Remember, the politician has to answer to you, not the other way around.  Do not let them turn the discussion towards you.  A pol calling into question your motives or whether you are even one of his constituents is a pol on the defensive.  He doesn't want to answer your question because he has no real answer beyond a talking point.  If you aren't a constituents for the pol in question, you may well want to keep your mouth shut.  Let the pols constituents make your argument for you.  Disarm them on this point from the very start.  Keep things focused on the issue - make the politician defend their position and whatever the legislation is. 

Example:  Ciro Rodriguez is my Representative in the House from my part of San Antonio, Texas..  He had a meeting at a Starbucks a few days ago.  I watched the video and was generally pleased with the attendees who were engaging him.  Mr. Rodriguez was asked if he would put himself or his family on the "public option" under the proposed health care legislation.  He said he would not because he was getting better insurance under his wife's health insurance plan.  His answer was ripe for destruction. 

No one countered this argument.  It gives lie to the Presidents assertion that people will be able to keep their current health insurance if they want.  Even a cursory examination of the legislation shows this to be false, so why let Obama or any other Pol keep stating it?  Also, if the "public option" is so all-fired better than what we have going, then why wouldn't Mr. Rodriguez go on the plan with his family?  Won't it "save them money"?  With this statement, Mr. Rodriguez admits the "public option" or any other aspect of government run health care is a poison pill.  Simply put, if the pols voting for the legislation won't be the first one's in line to take it, they have no business foisting it upon any of the rest of us, regardless of what they already have. 

Another counter to this argument I read the other days:  if as the president says the current situation in health care is "untenable", if the insurance companies and doctors are causing the costs to skyrocket and are performing unnecessary surgeries, if these very things are the cause of our current "crises", then why in the world is Obama or any other advocate for the government plan allowed to say we can and will be able to keep what we already have?  Isn't what we already have the problem?  The status quo is "untenable", so you will be able to maintain the status quo if you want?

It is hard to keep your emotions under control, especially when being goaded or put off by an elitist "public servant".  But the best way to counter the oppositions position is with logic and reason, not emotion.  If an opening presents itself for a zinger, then by all means take it but it will have more impact and make the demagoguing pol look more stupid if the rest of your arguments or questions are reasoned, rational and as unemotional as possible.