What is the message of the 2010 midterm elections ?

• Nearly two in three actual voters surveyed (63%) said the new Congress should “never” authorize using taxpayer funds to bailout or to buyout privately-owned businesses. Only 10% of voters support bailing out companies “too big to fail.”
• 68% of actual voters surveyed said corruption played a major role in the financial crisis with 47% saying corruption played a “very major role.”
• 67% of actual voters said they believe the records regarding how the Treasury Department has spent bailout funds should “definitely be made available” to the public, while only 13% of voters said the records should “definitely be kept secret” – a ratio of 5:1.
• 82% of actual voters said they believed the level of government corruption in Washington has either increased (43%) or stayed the same (39%) over the last two years. 68% of actual voters said they believe the level of government corruption in Washington will either increase (24%) or stay the same (44%) over the next two years.
• A total of 50 points separated those voters who say the average American has too little information about how their tax dollars are spent, and those who say such access to this information is “about right” (71%-21%) .
• By a 2-to-1 ratio, respondents believed that major legislation from the last two years (healthcare, economic stimulus and bailouts) made it more difficult to make the government account the use of taxpayer dollars – (62%-28%).
• Nearly 80% of actual voters who participated in the 2010 elections sensed that government grew larger during the first two years of the Obama administration, a development that a 51%-majority viewed negatively. Source: inc/WomanTrend and Judicial Watch

Apparently Judicial Watch commissioned this survey. The link above is to a PDF that is rather extensive. The point of this survey, among other things, is a warning to both parties to move on and get something done. The problem is found in the clash of two ideologies: socialism versus a free market economic structure.

Have we gotten to the point that compromise cannot be allowed? If so, congressional solutions are impossible and no one knows what is coming our way, next.

Few of us want to admit to the nature of the beast: [and the beast is] compromise is the only avenue available for legislative solutions in a representative society. The alternative is some level of totalitarianism, either via a dictator or a repressive legislative majority similar to what has existed in the House for the passed two years -- a repressive majority, we might add, that is either liberal or conservative. Because my cause is righteous does not give me the right to order your life.

While the far Left needs to understand that this country is never going to be a Marxist bastion, the Right needs to accept the fact that socialism will always be with us. We have it in our educational program at the high school and grade school levels, Social Security, Medicare, and even in our progressive tax system.

This editor is a member of the TEA party movement. But, he has no intentions of demonizing those within the GOP simply because they record an honest vote that compromises his personal views.

One might argue that this concession allows socialism a pathway to dominance via incremental legislation. This would be true if all the compromises were made in favor of the socialist dream of societal dominance. That is not the case. The struggle between states rights (federalism) and big government social dominance was an issue debated by our founding fathers and that circumstance is not going away anytime soon. This is the defining debate of our national politic. Marxism is an intrusion into that debate and must be rejected simply because it is foreign to all our founding principles.

What is off limits, however, is the undefined "fundamental transformation" of this country, a transformation that will give us a different history (according to Michelle Obama) and, consequently, a different historical outcome. Perhaps the single most important and overriding issue with regards to Obama's national agenda, is his unwillingness to specify in detail as to what he means by "fundamental change." We have witnessed two years of Obama's brand of socialism, and, to date, we have no idea just how far into socialism he intends to take this nation. We do know, however, that he rejects the traditional and historical purview of our Founders.

Liberals need to understand that card check, net neutrality, forced union membership, the banning of prvate gun ownership and cradle to the grave social assistance takes us far beyond anything that one might imagine as "compromise," especially when it takes away the right of the people to refuse the particular legislative provision. Social programs are one thing. But when Federal and World governments express their intention to run our lives without grassroots challenge, compromise on the part of conservative pundits is not possible.

Understand that personal responsibility is a "right" to the American conservative and a return to state and local governments is a rudimentary political goal. "Fundamental changes" are those legislative issues that work against these two considerations.