look. no doubt there are groups who are mobilizing opposition to healthcare reform, for various motives. but let's say 1,500 angry people show up at their congressperson's town hall, yelling 'tyranny' etc. were those people paid? were they flown in from elsewhere? when you talk to them, are they sincere? [i liked what the freedomworks dude (max pappas) said: we're always telling people to come out and protest. it's just that they don't usually show up.] now, you can focus obsessively on every problematic or stupid thing that some one person in that group says. you can call them a mob. you can call them astroturf brownshirts etc. those things will not solve your problem, or even help you to understand what the problem is, or even help you see that you have a problem.

your supposition is that you are, obviously, right, and that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil idiot. you can't even understand the fact that someone disagrees; this appears impossible because of the obvious extreme intelligence you attribute to yourself. so you pretend there are no actual objections, and no actual popular opposition, and no actual argument, only well-educated reasonable elites and ignorant ignoramuses. good luck with that; keep it up and you'll see what an angry mob really is, see first-hand the differences between being hung in effigy and actually being hung, and - most significantly - see what it's like to deserve to be hung.

since they are obviously sincere, and since your position on healthcare is unquestionably and obviously true, they must be the pawns of evil schemers; their view is entirely manipulated, and hence has no credibility; you don't have to grapple with it at all. but when you're sitting there nodding along with obama or paul krugman, or that slavish twit keith olbermann, your view isn't being manipulated. if you had any respect for actual human beings, it might occur to you that rush limbaugh is reflecting more than driving the opinions of his audience. obviously. you might try to sort out objections, which take the form of fundamental questions about the scope and legitimacy of state power over the lives of citizens. instead, top to bottom and side to side, all you do is slander. that's because, i guess, you're so reasonable and informed.