Two points

First off... I don't believe I mentioned Limbaugh, or Hannity, or Beck as the root of the problem. Or even a small part of it. In fact, one could make a damn good case that the pundits of conservatism on both TV and radio are doing ALL the work that the GOP should be doing. I was blaming Steele and the Congressional conservatives for NOT DOING ENOUGH to show what is and isn't working, not calling for celebs with microphones to do more.

Secondly, I can understand the need to vent your frustration... we all have that need, or there would be no need for the Bund at all. I'm simply calling for a little perspective, that's all.

I'm no Obama-supporter, by any stretch of the imagination, but there are aspects of his agendas that I can say I approve of. The Afghan Surge, for one. His reluctance to pull troops out of Iraq on his campaign-trail schedule is another. He has (to date) made no public plans to reduce the size, strength or capacity of our military (although there is still 3.5 years left for him to do so). Now, this is a drop-in-the-bucket... and still subject to change in the future... but the prospects for Obama's ability to dramatically alter the framework of our federal system of government is a long and difficult path to ponder. What examples are there in history of "liberals" making such sweeping, fundamental changes to our society and the framework of government?

The first that comes to mind is Franklin D. Roosevelt. He solidified the "welfare state" mentality in Washington D.C. and ushered in decades of excessive (and yes, questionable) massive public spending programs that were utterly outside of the Executive Branch's constitutional perogative. However, he did that over the course of more than 12 years of White House control and a degree of popular Congressional support and wild public enthusiasm that is almost unrivaled in US history.

Another might be Lyndon B. Johnson. His "Great Society" movement and agendas furthered the welfare-state attitude of Government's role in our lives, but he was working this agenda at a time of particular public unrest and discontentment... and I feel his failures reinforced his agendas rather than undermined them. As the country saw the war in Vietnam, the civil rights movement and the college protests of conservative society all become more and more violent and anti-American in nature, the need for greater and greater Government intervention was seen as the solution, rather than the problem.

Now we have Barrack H. Obama. He took office in a time of particularly painful economic times... but nothing on the scale of the economy of 1933. He was elected at a time of wide-spread public frustration with established US foreign policy and domestic security, but nothing compared to the domestic turbulence of 1964-1968. One would have thought his Congressional support constituted a real threat to conservative politics in America, but it now seems more and more likely that the support he had so depended on was tenuous at best, and is now turning away far faster than anyone had imagined it would.

My point about "opposition politics" was more that it works to get you into office, but it is a damn lousy way to stay there. Has anyone noticed that even Obama has had to stop blaming the GOP and Bush for the nation's problems since June? How can he keep blaming the "opposition" when they are so thoroughly removed from control? How long is the public going to buy the excuse that the reason the ship is still heading for the rocks is because of the Captain that was steering it 7 months ago? Even this nation's most politically lethargic populus will rapidly begin to see that, to avoid the rocks and save the ship, the NEW Captain will need to do some steering and take some responsibility.