Maybe you've caught a little bit of what's gone on so far with the town halls on health care reform.  During this August recess, many Representatives have returned home to their constituents to hold discussions and answer questions regarding the health care bills awaiting floor debate when Congress returns to work.  But a number of conservative opposition groups, spearheaded by one called FreedomWorks (the same organization chaired by former House Republican leader Dick Armey that held massive "Tea Parties" around the country on Tax Day) have organized plans to crash local Town Hall meetings and disrupt the question-and-answer sessions.  The group has spent the last several weeks preparing for their guerilla-style infiltration of community meetings, passing out leaflets on how to do things like make it appear that there are more of them than there really are, how to over-talk and shout down speakers, and other methods of general disruption.
So, when Congressmen and women have gotten home, they've been met with something like this:

And this meeting is hardly the only one of its kind.  Rep. David Scott of Georgia became embroiled in a shouting match with a member of his audience, only to have a swastika graffiti on his office sign shortly thereafter.  Even Republicans have been subjected to the same kind of treatment.

A number of Democrats have jumped on the situation, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even calling the disruptors "un-American."

But it may be that Democrats and other health care reform proponents would be better off allowing them to do what they came to do.  In the end, the Constitution is on their side: if they go to a town hall meeting, they have every right to speak loudly and passionately, even to cite information that might be downright false.  Liberals can't embrace the First Amendment only when it suits them: there's nothing in that all-important clause of our hallowed founding document that demands speech be made with civility and accuracy.  These select few conservatives are exercising the power of the organized minority, which can often trump an ambivalent majority (repeated polls have shown that more than 70% of Americans are in favor of one form of health care reform or another).

If Democrats welcome dissenters but refuse to engage or be intimidated by them, the FreedomWorks minions will destroy their own cause.

The entire goal of the exercise is twofold: one, to convince other attendees that there is tremendous outrage over the issue to which they're not privy; and two, to create enough of a ruckus to get onto local news station and spread the same message to people at home in their living rooms.

But the simple fact is that if you take away the screamers, the rest of the town hall attendees are responsible citizens looking to educate themselves on a highly important piece of legislation.  Fomenting dissent by standing up and screaming in the faces of elected officials has a polarizing effect, the same way negative campaigning in electoral contests only goes so far.  If meeting-goers and viewers at home walk away with the impression that Democrats are evasive about the answers they do have and defensive about the ones they don't, FreedomWorks will have achieved its objectives.  But if Democrats can sit back and wait for their angry implosion, the only remaining sentiment will be the good citizens' resentment that these political operatives are actively working to stymie public information and debate.

But what Democrats can't do is insult the process by claiming that the disruptors have no right to do what they're doing.  Let's not get confused: they absolutely do.

It's incredibly difficult to stand there and be screamed at and needled in such an offensive way and still maintain composure.  But if Democrats can keep a smile on their faces and say, "Thank you for your question, but I believe you're mistaken," and then follow up with a reasonable explanation, FreedomWorks' tactics will show themselves to be what they truly are: a desperate attempt by the right not to promote debate, but to dominate it so thoroughly as to keep everyone else out of it.

I imagine that in the group of disruptors you are including the union, Acorn and other "grassroot Obama groups..." fair is fair, right?

The article SUPPORTS their right to go to meetings and even to use- for lack of a better term- uncivil methods to disrupt the meeting.

What the author says is that the vitriol will ultimately sink the movement if Democrats don't sink to their level.

"But a number of conservative opposition groups" The majority of the protesters are not part of any special group. There mad citizens that have the right to protest whatever they want.Start being american people

I 100% agree. All thos corupt groups on in the way in the election. People need to stop being so 1 sided

The fundamental premise of the article is that these people SHOULD be allowed to assemble and speak their minds, but that means Democrats have to battle the tactic with informed reason and civility. If they do, the "disruptors" will come off as irrationally angry people who want to prevent any kind of real discussion on the issue.