When 'change' means everything stays the same

Yes, we witnessed a dramatic congressional upheaval November past with Republicans reclaiming the House and the majority of Democrats who did win having done so by running on right-of-center platforms.

But what has really changed? And pursuant to Republican promises of change, I am not remotely comfortable with what I see. There's certainly enough reason not to trust them. Additionally, I'm uncomfortable because the same players with abysmal track records are still in charge on both sides of the aisle.

For all the spittle-sprayed pontification (most notably by Republicans) following the November elections, one of the first acts of business was to pass a trillion dollar spending bill called a tax-cut compromise.

Granted, I may be looking at things simplistically, but why does it cost a trillion dollars to extend tax cuts that were already in place? It's because, just as the bill was labeled, it was about compromise, i.e., we'll give you the tax cut but it will cost the American people a trillion dollars – and those on our side said OK. They compromised, and we got the short end of the stick.

The first Republican act of business after the November elections was a dramatic fanfare aimed at ending earmarks. But included in the tax-cut bill were approximately 6,000 earmarks, many of them added by members (and senior members at that) of the same party calling for an end to them.

TRENDING: 'Situation is completely unstable:' Crenshaw tours border, exposes how bad it really is

Now the 112th Congress is about to be seated, and I ask again, what has changed? How are the interests of the people going to be served? My feeling, until proven otherwise, is that they won't be. We still have Republican Party elites and pundits blaming the tea party for Republicans not taking control of the Senate. I heard Dana Perino, on "Fox and Friends," call Sen. Lisa Murkowsky, R-Alaska, a good conservative. Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer championed uber liberal Mike Castle, R-Del., even as G.W. Bush championed Arlen Specter, as they continue in their attempt to marginalize Sarah Palin.

Rove and Krauthammer talk about her lack of qualification, but what qualified George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama? And if she were to be only slightly poorer than President Ronald Reagan, should she decide to run, how bad would that be? Rove speaks of her reality show not making her look presidential. First of all, the show isn't political and she isn't president; second, the show has been a boon for Alaska tourism; third, what would Rove have said about Teddy Roosevelt and his hunting trips? And finally, who the heck is Karl Rove? He has a right to his opinion, as does Krauthammer, but keep in mind that Krauthammer, who was part of the Carter administration, wrote speeches for Walter Mondale and found fault with Ronald Reagan.

You may be thinking to yourself, but they're not in Congress, and in that you'd be right. They are, however, able to exert tremendous influence – Rove through the use of his 527 cash and Krauthammer because of his multi-media platform.

How long will Republican leadership remember their promises? If it literally took three weeks to forget their pledge to end earmarks, what can we reasonably expect them to forget in a month, or six months?

I know and am fully aware that I run the risk of being viewed as a wild-eyed, crazed, blood-dripping-from-my-jaw tea-party fanatic who represents the far side of reasonability – to which I say, so be it. Those who said similar things about me in 2002 are now holding signs at rallies in support of tea-party groups.

We didn't elect people to go to Washington to compromise, so I maintain that a person who is given over to compromise is a person who will sell you out to accomplish same. I grow weary of compromise. Suppose our Founding Fathers had told King George, lower the tax on tea and we'll remain loyal subjects? Suppose we told Muslim terrorists they can have access to our courts, our lawyers, build their mosques wherever they want and – oh, that's right, we did; and they're still murdering our people.

The search for heroes and hope lead voters to believe that a word, phrase or speech makes a person the ideal candidate. But history is our hero, and our hope should be in God. That said, my positions are not ipse dixit, if everything remains the same, what good is change?