Eugene Robinson, Spoiled Brats and Temper Tantrums

Eugene Robinson


Many of the conservative blogs are burning up this morning in criticism of Eugene Robinson's op-ed in the Washington Past

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090203992.html?nav=emailpage

Of course, the reaction is obvious, and it is not much of a challenge to rebut Mr Robinson. First of all, he is a liberal Democrat partisan, which he acknowledges. He appears on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" show practically every night. In short, his opinions are predictable. The flaw in his logic is glaring.

The obvious question for Mr Robinson is whether he thinks the American people had a temper tantrum when they elected Barack Obama as president. Obviously not. It is only when Democrats lose elections or appear to be heading for defeat that the liberals accuse Americans of having a temper tantrum. Indeed, "temper tantrum" was precisely the term Peter Jennings used in November 1994, when the Republicans swept to victory in the mid-term elections.

Most thoughtful conservatives blamed the Republican politicians in Washington for the fall of their fortunes, especially in Congress after they broke their pledges of 1994. Indeed, the Tea Party movement was spawned partially because of the fact that Republicans in Washington had been corrupted by the system in Washington and deserved to be thrown out as well. One need look no further than the recent defeat of Republican insiders in the primaries in favor of lesser-known conservatives who align themselves with the Tea Party movement.

Now, in 2010, Robinson calls Americans "spoiled brats" and dusts off the temper tantrum charge as if there is something immature in not voting for Democrats. Of course, Mr Robinson doesn't want to face the truth of why Americans are angry. They see a drastic shift of this country toward socialism. They perceive racial politics in the White House, Justice Department and other branches of government after they elected a president they thought might bring us together. They see the government go after a state that tries to deal with the lawlessness coming across the border because Washington won't. They see a drift toward the Arab world at the expense of Israel. They see Obama and the State Department kow-towing toward the corrupt, Third-World bureaucrats at the UN and other foreign rulers who are our sworn enemies. They see weakness and incompetence in the so-called "War on terror". They have taken note of people Obama has put in power;

Janet Napolitano, Van Jones, Marc Lloyd, Kevin Jennings, Hilda Solis, Tim Geithner, Harold Koh, Hannah Rosenthal, etc.

They are bewildered by out of control government spending and the takeover of major industries by Washington.

They have perceived that Washington has scant respect for their feelings and is at war with them if they disagree. They now feel that they are there only to serve their governments, local, state and federal, instead of the other way around.

And it is not just the "lunatic right" that has turned against Obama; it is the independents, Jewish voters, moderates. Indeed, almost every demographic entity is now shaking its collective head at what is happening in this country.

So Mr Robinson and his colleagues at the Washington Post, New York Times and MSNBC can call it whatever they like. They are hypocrites because they celebrated the Democratic victories in the past decade. They didn't call them "temper tantrums".

It is not a temper tantrum. It is the natural reaction of the American people when things swing too far to one side and the abuses take over. The voters will (hopefully) take the needed corrective action. And if, as predicted, Republicans sweep to power in Congress in November, they need to remember the lessons of 1994 and their broken promises. We will be watching them as well.

In the meantime, I look forward to Mr Robinson's own temper tantrum in November.