An election mandate for Obama!

I will concede that the country voted for change! The significant win by President Obama was clearly predicated on the need for change in Washington. Change was one of the top reasons cited for voting for Obama after all. Sure, the economy tanked at the right time and he is a young new face, but he was voted into office because people are tired of politics as usual, of what typically happens in Washington. He ran on a platform of change. Did he bring it? You can decide that for yourself, but let me ask a few things. Has anything changed in Washington? Has anyone made attempts to change anything in Washington? I would submit the answers to both of these are no. Or are they? After all, we now have more czar positions than we have cabinet members. That's change (the most unelected and unvetted people in history participating in running the country). We now have Congress passing bill after bill of lengthy and complicated legislation that they haven't even read. That's change (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they ever read any of it or that they even read at all). These two things certainly qualify as change in Washington, although I don't think very many people would consider it positive change. Have we done anything to limit the power of the lobbyists? Uh, that would be no. In fact, we have now gone to bed with the labor unions (at least in the auto business) in order to "save" that industry. Labor unions are not a wing of government, but are in fact lobbyists of the government, just to be clear. More change includes taking the census from the Department of Commerce (where it has been for over 100 years) and handing it over to a nationally known corrupt political hack organization, specifically, ACORN. That's certainly change we can believe in, huh? My point is this. Obama was given an election mandate, largely because people were fed up with politics as usual in Washington. He made a good speech and sounded like he wanted to change things. However, Congress and this administration seem to have missed the point. They seem to think that the mandate received in the election was for the liberal agenda. More bailouts, more stimulus, more spending, more government interference in health care and the largest tax increase in history (although they call it a "fee" and say it'll help the environment). The midterm elections will likely come as a surprise to Democrats and liberals because they have conducted business as usual in Washington rather than bringing about change. The mandate was for change, not the liberal agenda and certainly not for business as usual. In fact, this point is so lost on Democrats and the media that they belittle the "TEA" parties which are grass roots and bipartisan as nothing more than a FoxNews ploy. For the record, they aren't a FoxNews ploy but the main stream media likes to report it that way because otherwise, they'd have to do real journalism. These movements are only being positively covered by FoxNews. If that makes them sponsored by FoxNews, then I guess that means that NBC covering the olympics exclusively means they are in bed with China's communist government. See, the logic is faulty. Nonetheless, I suggest some people start waking up and realizing that our current leaders are doing their best to ramrod their own agendas and not what is best for the country. If they do, then perhaps we can really do something about it at the midterm elections.