Town Halls vs. One-on-one discussions

[LynzM]

I remember reading a couple weeks ago about how one member of congress countered the town hall disruptions this way:

People lined up, then met with the congressperson individually, for a few minutes, to discuss concerns.

This has to be a better approach to changing peoples minds than the town halls. A town hall meeting gives an open forum to those who would disrupt the whole process. Also, even if you *did* convince anybody to change their mind, they'd have to a) come down from the adrenaline high of the "fight" and b) lose face by admitting it. You're killing that chance just by the very format.

Thoughts?

(edited for late-night poor grammar)

[yourout]

1. And it takes the mob mentality out of the equation. The rightys are not so...

ballsy when they are one on one with a congressperson instead of 100 to 1.

[LynzM]

2. Exactly.

Easy to be a jerk when you think there are 100 people with you against the one. Much more difficult when it's one-on-one, and you get no public recognition or support for it.