Elections have consequences. Maybe even more so after some are encouraged to punish their opposition or relegating them to the back seat. All in the spirit of bipartisan politics of course.
One of the keys to understanding politics is being able to differentiate between what's election year bluster, designed to whip a party's base into acting, and what's actual policy. Clearly, Obama-in-action is not attempting to keep the Republicans in the back seat.
Elections aren't decided on policy though. Would that they were, it would be a saner world. They aren't though, they are decided on emotion and that "vision thing."
The republicans are better at communicating vision, and while the dems are better at crafting policy, they CAVE like the spineless cowards they are when implementation is debated in the corporate driven "public" (although most of the "public" is left out of the conversation except to tell us what we think) debate. Republicans NEVER shift left because of overwhelming "public"" demand. Democrats, in every administration I was alive for have shifted right. The democrats would have more successful policy initiatives if they simply said: the voters have spoken, this was our platform, the American people voted for it, and we're implementing it, so suck it up.
Fucking pussies. Not one and all, some have heart. They are gutted ruthlessly, and never more ruthlessly than by their own party.
Ah yes. The ole "Democrats just didn't get their message out" and "Republicans vote in lockstep" meme. Unfortunately both of those are wrong.
Dems got their message out loud and clear: We want your money.
Republican don't vote in lockstep. Remember Olympia Snowe? Susan Collins? Do they vote with Jim DeMint all the time? The last Congress was an aberration. Even those RINOs knew the Obama agenda sucked and had to be defeated.