True character?

I was driving home this evening from a boys basketball game and heard an interesting bit of information as I listed to the radio on Cleveland's WTAM 1100 AM. They were doing the 10:00 news and mentioned that several Republican lawmakers had expressed problems with President Obama's and the Democrats' latest economic "stimulus" package. Honestly, I can't blame them for having problems since I think this is the exact thing NOT to do to help the economy. Well, the person reporting the news stated that there was a White House meeting on the subject with those lawmakers and that while Obama said he'd "listen" he also said that didn't mean he'd actually do anything about it. OK, good start, I thought. At least he's listening, right? At the very least he can hear other viewpoints and at least feign the appearance of bipartisanship and "working together." Well, the next sentence was the kicker. "Obama reminded the lawmakers who won the election in November." Yes, we ALL know the Democrats won pretty handily in November, not only the presidency, but also picking up additional seats in Congress. The fact that he even said that, to me, shows his true colors. What, does he honestly think they don't know they're in a minority and that they KNOW they don't have the votes to stop it? That's why they came to him...to express concern and to make sure their voices are heard. Why does Obama feel like he needs to add that?

I'll be the first to say the Republicans basically did the same thing in 2004 after Bush got re-elected by a larger margin than anyone thought and the Republicans gained additional seats in Congress. While I was happy with their victories in '04, I wasn't happy with how they handled themselves after it. When stuff like that happens we start hearing words like "mandate" and "will of the people." Funny, when the majority chooses something liberals don't like (like, say, supporting Proposition 8 in California) then they instantly jump to the defense of the minority. When the majority supports their side, however, then the minority conservatives just need to "accept" the will of the people. Truth is, neither 2004 or 2008 was an overwhelming majority victory for either side, so it hardly represents a broad consensus or anything close to a unified electorate. Further, when will politicians understand that winning an election does not mean voters give them a free pass to do whatever the heck they want to? Voters expect those whom they support to fulfill campaign promises and work to benefit as many people as possible in the areas those politicians represent. For a party who harked so much on the public disdain for the Iraq war as a reason to end it, why aren't they paying attention to the public disgust with all this bailout and stimulus nonsense? And all this talk of unity, as I mentioned in November, sure sounds nice, but rings hollow. When a party owns a clear majority, they don't need unity. Again, where were the Democrat's calls for unity in 2004 when they were on the losing end of the elections? Anytime a majority power calls for unity-- whether Republican or Democrat-- that really translates to "submission." What better way to quash opposition than to make it look like they're not willing to work together and are fighting "unity?" Come on politicians...I don't care what party you are a member of; I just want you to do what is best for the country without thinking about how it will benefit your stupid "party."