I watched the video, but it seems to me you could draw numerous things from it and I'm not sure where you're going exactly. What's your take, precisely? That many images and words used in different contexts over the course of years do not exactly speak for themselves.
The first thing I
would question is whether the situation at town halls today, where I read of over sometimes over a thousand protestors in one place simply trying to shut the whole thing down
by shouting and threatening throughout the speech, is really akin to what you saw Pelosi facing. Notice, in 2009, she is arguing specifically against a style of "campaign" that is afraid to deal in facts.
You're assuming the two kinds of opposition argue from positions of equal merit. I'm skeptical. At some point, we have to resolve a conflict between demands for limitless free speech by a few and calls for social welfare policy by the many. Anyone could
hold a minority filibuster on Main Street, but when the traffic can't move at all, it's a different kind of problem. I don't see the San Francisco protestors bearing guns. I don't even see them working as a large group to keep the entire speech from going forward. This was not the same as what I gather from the news lately.
It's a lack of good arguments and reliance on false claims and bad premises plus active disruption
that mark the present sort of opposition as obstruction in my mind. That said, I bet you we would be more likely to have truly mass
protests that brought positive
change the day after the Right miscalculated enough to actually, fully institute too many of their slogans. Namely, those slogans include: Privatize Everything Further (starting with health care -- just ignore Medicare), Ban the Gays, Reinforce the Rich, Punish the Blacks, and Bomb Every "Evil" abroad in the world now
. Do all of those things immediately and regardless of the history and capabilities of everyone involved, or you are a "pinkie socialist feminine weakling traitor" -- so the logic goes.
I want to believe radicals of that ilk are only being sponsored to show up political points and none of the Republican leaders would be inept enough to actually follow through and act on their associations with them. But that is problematic now that a "core constituency" has been built around them. Going forward in the spirit of being a "good, solid Republican" while relying on alliances such as these
is a path that should lead to larger masses in the streets with good cause, more than a few bursts of tear gas and "free speech pens" could stop. Not to mention an increasingly dangerous foreign response. For better and worse, Bush-Cheney were self-preserving enough to operate incrementally and often secretively with those policies that dragged their initially bare-majority ratings (again, lower than Obama's starting support) down into the abyss.
The right counts
on more of the lefty speakers to stay "nerdy"/"tolerant" and focused across many individual issues, while it continues to change the subject from blink to blink. Meanwhile, the right mainly rails vaguely about "weakness" and "spending" with colorful references to its over-hyped masculinity -- whether the actual issue in question is health care, abortion or Iran -- so that its most radical people stay in more emotional lockstep. Then, it tries to sell those few people as "everday" people or a "moral majority," which is simply implausible. There is free speech, there are arguments... And then there's just plain throwing fits and dressing up "Me, me, me" as if it made a majority.
We're not working with the protests of 2006, anymore. Different animals, different responses.