About that "Change"...

Throughout the campaign, all we heard from the Obama camp and his supporters was the mantra about "change". That's fine - sometimes change is good. And sometimes it is not.

Part of that change he promised was to bring the nation back together., Yet, the liberals are screaming for just the opposite. They want to prosecute everyone in the Bush administration - how's that for "bringing the two sides together"? The liberal's concept of bringing America together is to get rid of all who oppose them.

Part of the change promised was fiscal responsibility - but even before taking office, Obama has requested a stimulus package of dubious value that will cost taxpayers a whopping $900 million dollars - even more than the bailout bill. And that does not even include the debt that will be incurred from initiating any of his other promises - health care, for example.

Part of his "change" was to change the "Washington Insider" corruption. As yet, his picks for advisors and cabinet do not show any such change. Most are old-time Washington insiders, themselves.

Previous inaugurations cost no more than $45 million taxpayer dollars. Obama's is costing us more than three times that - about $150 million dollars. For what purpose? Glitz! At a time when recession is wreaking havoc on the rest of us.

Polls indicate that 70% of Americans are counting on Obama to "fix everything". Of course, that is an absurd notion. He can do little on his own - it is Congress that makes most changes, and they have a lower approval rating than Bush. What little they have done in the last several years has not been good. So, what does this mean?

It means Democrats will use Obama's failings, when they occur, to place more blame on Republicans. When Obama falls short of a goal, they will simply say that Bush made things SO bad that even the Mighty Obama could not fix them. They will claim that the media hyped Obama so much that folks had unrealistic expectations. What they will NOT tell you is that Obama, himself, set those expectations throughout the campaign. Through the media that has a love affair with Obama, they will make you forget that part, and point out that Obama has actually succeeded remarkably just because things did not get too much worse.

In short, those high expectations, set by Obama, the Democrats and the media, will not be met. And when they are not met, they will blame the Republicans. "If only the Bush administration had not ruined things SO badly, Obama could have fixed it." Sure. Forget that when he was soliciting votes, he assured us that he COULD, and WOULD fix it.

Last evening I listened to a "Democratic Strategist" state that we all know how it works - a candidate says whatever he has to in order to win, because if he does not win, he cannot do anything. Excuse me for saying so, but you would never hear a Republican strategist say such a dumb thing. Most Republicans still believe that we should be choosing leaders who are honest, and have integrity. If they will lie to get elected, then they will lie about anything, and do not have the integrity to be a leader.

That is why the Republicans lost lately. Their base - true Republicans - are disenfranchised with the Republican leadership. Republicans have integrity, and will not vote for those they believe unworthy. And Republican leaders have shown themselves to be unworthy. They have strayed far from the core values of real Republicans.

If Republicans can find a few good, honest people to run, those candidates will get the support they need to win. But we must first rout out the wayward Republicans. The ones who believe in amnesty. The ones who believe in gay marriage. The ones who are not strongly opposed to abortion. Those who think we should socialize America just because we hit a rough spot.

That is why Governor Palin hit such a strong chord with the Republicans on the ground - she's rooted in the core values. And that is also why both the Republican leadership and the Democrats fear her so much that even now they continue to attack her. The Republican leadership does not want to lose control of the party to core Republican values. The Democrats fear the popularity of Palin.

The same can be said of any strong conservative, such as Newt Gingrich.

Frankly, if the Republican party were to put Palin and Gingrich on the same ticket, I could almost guarantee a landslide in 2012. Guts and brains. It is what we need.

What we do not need is more empty rhetoric about "change".

/