Tea-Party Temper Tantrums

Andrew Sullivan's answer to a reader's attacks on President Obama sums up my criticism of the Tea Party protests on The Daily Dish.

It's perfectly proper - even admirable - to demonstrate and argue against the new administration's ideas, but it's also worth recalling that this plan in its essentials was an integral part of the president's campaign platform and his party's effective manifesto. It was debated ad nauseam last year, and Obama won by a hefty margin. The tone of these protests suggests that this is some wild power-grab. It isn't. It's a centrist and not-too-ambitious plan to fulfill a clear campaign pledge as responsibly as possible within a sensible fiscal framework.

The protestors keep saying that they want their country back. Sorry, my fellow small-governmenters, but this country is a democracy, and you didn't lose your country, you just lost an election. You had your chance for eight years. You blew it, and you lost. What Obama is doing is what he was elected to do. The principled response is not a massive, extremist-riddled hissy fit a few months in, but a constructive set of proposals to build on universal care for a more market-friendly and cost-conscious system in the future. You have to win some political credibility for that; and then you have to beat the man you lost so badly to last year. That's the civil and civilized way forward for the right. It also seems, alas, to be the one they are currently refusing to take.

Exactly. Elections have consequences. The Tea Party protesters' side not only lost the 2008 election but lost badly. Now, according to non-partisan fact check website Politifact.com, Obama is doing largely what he said he would do throughout the campaign (promises kept outnumber promises broken 41 to 7). Using their Constitutionally protected voice is a good thing. Failing to use that priviledge in a coherent and fact-based manner is not.

--Ballard Burgher