Shortly after the election, feelings ran high on both sides of the political fence. Some of us were all, "suck on that, red-staters." The others reverted to the same tactics that cost their side the election in the first place. Case and point: freshman Josh Rodrick attempted a call for unity in a letter to the Collegian. But since he could not resist the chance to take a baseless swipe at the president-elect, he comes off as being divisive.

…To say people should unite under one president because it brings change is asking much of a society in which people cannot even respect or agree with their neighbors.

For this American society that voted for a president that flies a flag other than the American flag over his name, where is the unified organization?

The "Obama’s not really American" meme is like a bad neighbor who simply will not trim his encroaching weeds no matter what happens to everyones’ property values. Time and time again, people keep repackaging the old message with shiny new bullshit. There goes the neighborhood.

Our first black president will be the first and definite change, and while he coerced much of the United States to vote for him, we will see come January 2009 how much our nation will change.

There you have it. It’s unthinkable that our first black president would win in a fair, free democratic election. Rather, he "coerced" a majority of the population and the electoral college.

Do not unite under a president; unite together, unite under the American flag and the principles this country was founded on; find some middle ground or cooperation and let your voice be heard.

In making a worthwhile claim, Rodrock resorts to pettiness that undercuts his own message. Neocon doublethink was already rejected by the voters. It insults our intelligence and has no place in a democracy that requires honesty to function. Bitter red-staters should leave the calls for unity to someone who actually means them.

[K-State Collegian]