Saw this on another thread... Here's my question: What is shocking or inappropriate about stating forthrightly that you intend to fight against someone who is trying to enact change that you feel is inherently dangerous to what you feel your constituents want/elected you to do/is in the best interest for the country? No one seemed shocked when Democrats stated during the Bush Administration that they opposed the administration's policies, called them or the President directly, stupid/dangerous/criminal/etc. It seemed only logical that if you were against what President Bush was trying to do you would fight against it...not rally to his side as a sign of good sportsmanship or in the spirit of bipartisanship. So here comes our new president...and we know from his books, his votes, his statements, etc. that he is going to push for massive healthcare reforms, higher taxes, that he believes the best approach to foreign policy begins with apologizing to various nations for the ways we have "wronged" them in the past...etc. Agree or disagree, these are ideas that are inherently opposed to much of what the Republicans in Congress claim to represent. Why exactly are you expecting them to say, "Well - gee, the President is a Democrat so I guess we should all just bow down/bend over/shut up and let him do whatever he wants to this country for four years...and then we'll revisit the ideas and see if the people want a Republican again!" Why is it shocking or offensive to hear a Republican politican say that they want to shut down Obama's agenda and that they'd like him to be a one-term president? Why isn't it just a "Well...duh!" observation. If Romney wins the Presidency in November...will we witness Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shake his hand and say, "Congratulations, Mr. President, lets have lunch and discuss how we can lower taxes on the rich, end Obamacare as quickly as possible, and do whatever else you have in your rich, Republican head to do!"