I guess that about sums it up.

[Townsend]

There were democrats against the federal trials also.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/02/democratic-opposition-to-terror-trials-grows/

So in other words, with the republicans taking the lead, they blocked the president's attempt to close the prison and bring the trials to the states.

[nathanm]

So in other words, with the republicans taking the lead, they blocked the president's attempt to close the prison and bring the trials to the states.

Didn't anyone tell you? Everything is Obama's fault. He also caused the earthquake in Japan and it was his pressing desire to light a cigarette that set off the explosions at Fukushima Daiichi.

[Red Arrow]

Didn't anyone tell you? Everything is Obama's fault. He also caused the earthquake in Japan and it was his pressing desire to light a cigarette that set off the explosions at Fukushima Daiichi.

You forgot the tsunami.  He wanted the job.  He should have known he'd get blamed for everything sooner or later.

[guido911]

Didn't anyone tell you? Everything is Obama's fault. He also caused the earthquake in Japan and it was his pressing desire to light a cigarette that set off the explosions at Fukushima Daiichi.

Oh you cannot be serious. Obama gets blamed for everything. Sheesh, his entire presidency is based upon blaming Bush for everything or that he "inherited" this and that. Short term memory defect Nate?

Use that "The Google" and search "Obama blames Bush" and see what comes up.

[guido911]

So in other words, with the republicans taking the lead, they blocked the president's attempt to close the prison and bring the trials to the states.

No, in my SAME words, "There were democrats against the federal trials also". What's wrong with those words, I mean other than its true and it weakens your position.

[nathanm]

Oh you cannot be serious. Obama gets blamed for everything. Sheesh, his entire presidency is based upon blaming Bush for everything or that he "inherited" this and that. Short term memory defect Nate?

No, I remember the past, I just think it's not relevant to this particular complaint. Nice attempt at misdirection, though.

[guido911]

No, I remember the past, I just think it's not relevant to this particular complaint. Nice attempt at misdirection, though.

Misdirection? Pointing out how inane your point about Obama getting blamed, while he does a great deal of blaming others (which I believe you conceded by silence), is irrelevant? Wowzers.

[Hoss]

Misdirection? Pointing out how inane your point about Obama getting blamed, while he does a great deal of blaming others (which I believe you conceded by silence), is irrelevant? Wowzers.

AW alert...

[nathanm]

Misdirection? Pointing out how inane your point about Obama getting blamed, while he does a great deal of blaming others (which I believe you conceded by silence), is irrelevant? Wowzers.

Do you think that the President has the power to act even when Congress has specifically barred the President from doing so?

[Townsend]

AW alert...

Jeez, seriously.

[we vs us]

How is this really a surprise at this point?  If you've been following the Gitmo saga (anywhere after the last major uproar a year or two ago about KSM being tried in NYC), it's been pretty obvious that all the GOP and a rump of conservative Dems were going to defund a civil trial, in effect forcing it back to Gitmo and to the military.

I don't like what's happened but I don't think Obama had total autonomy on this, and this became a plank of convenience on the GOP platform (IMO, it's now impossible to tell what the GOP actually believes and what the GOP thinks will gain it political traction -- and this is one of those cases).   

And re: his original campaign promises:  Obama's been trying to govern in amazingly bad circumstances, and that includes an opposition party that's been so unhinged by his presidency that they've been split in half between the haters and the crazy-haters. This doesn't excuse some of his policy decisions, or his method of governance, which is in fact (IMO) different than what was on the label back in 2008.  I also think some of his strategy has been bad (the healthcare bill, for instance, could've been much more effective if he'd taken a stronger stance earlier), but in this case, it's pure obstructionism on the part of the GOP.

And don't get me started on the Dem big tent.  A loose confederation of similarly interested (or bored, or corrupted) legislators doesn't cut it as a political party these days.  The GOP has had the Dems punked on this front for a decade now, with no signs of things improving.   

[Gaspar]

The primary function of being President is leading.  Issues that you promote during the campaign become your duty.  You write your own job description, and if the people agree with it, they hire you for the job.

In order to lead, a president must be able to unite people with differing opinions and diverse backgrounds to do what was promised.  It is necessary for a president to be able to convince members of the house, senate, and the people in general that decisiveness is necessary and in the best interest of the country.  Some of this is done through words and some through compromise, but all decisions must be made with the understanding that what is in the best interest of the people is in the best interest of their representatives. 

Legislation and it's implications MUST be viewed with some common understanding by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, as well as by the public.  It is a big part of the leadership role of the president to convey interpretations of important measures, and decisions to the assembly and the public, and develop that understanding.

We have seen only corporatism (a throw back to the old Chicago political system).  We have seen bitter infighting.  We have seen a rush to push legislation in an attempt to avoid understanding.  We have seen quick judgement and slow reaction, and viewed international commitment to challenges where we retain no leadership role.  We continue to see a campaign of spending to buy votes with money borrowed from China, and flowering speeches backed with withering promises.

We have yet to see a single moment of leadership, a gleam of independent thought, or any essence of alliance or harmony.

The campaign slogans continue, but Change is not hiring.  The blame continues, but the old ghosts are no longer in the room.  We see a man who struggles to take credit for a myriad of tiny victories with out a single success.  All that remains is the Hope that somehow he is learning, and somehow he will eventually take the reigns and understand that to get things done he must lead, and this cannot be done through hollow words alone.

"The superior leader gets things done with very little motion. He imparts instruction not through many words but through a few deeds. He keeps informed about everything but interferes hardly at all. He is a catalyst, and though things would not get done well if he weren't't there, when they succeed he takes no credit. And because he takes no credit, credit never leaves him." — Lao Tse, Tao Te Ching

Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton were very different politically, but they could lead.  They could walk into a room of people with very different opinions, and have everyone walk out with a shared understanding.  They were very good at making those on both sides of the argument feel like winners at the end of the day.  This attribute has not surfaced in President Obama.

[guido911]

The primary function of being President is leading.  Issues that you promote during the campaign become your duty.  You write your own job description, and if the people agree with it, they hire you for the job.

In order to lead, a president must be able to unite people with differing opinions and diverse backgrounds to do what was promised.  It is necessary for a president to be able to convince members of the house, senate, and the people in general that decisiveness is necessary and in the best interest of the country.  Some of this is done through words and some through compromise, but all decisions must be made with the understanding that what is in the best interest of the people is in the best interest of their representatives.  

Legislation and it's implications MUST be viewed with some common understanding by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, as well as by the public.  It is a big part of the leadership role of the president to convey interpretations of important measures, and decisions to the assembly and the public, and develop that understanding.

We have seen only corporatism (a throw back to the old Chicago political system).  We have seen bitter infighting.  We have seen a rush to push legislation in an attempt to avoid understanding.  We have seen quick judgement and slow reaction, and viewed international commitment to challenges where we retain no leadership role.  We continue to see a campaign of spending to buy votes with money borrowed from China, and flowering speeches backed with withering promises.

We have yet to see a single moment of leadership, a gleam of independent thought, or any essence of alliance or harmony.

The campaign slogans continue, but Change is not hiring.  The blame continues, but the old ghosts are no longer in the room.  We see a man who struggles to take credit for a myriad of tiny victories with out a single success.  All that remains is the Hope that somehow he is learning, and somehow he will eventually take the reigns and understand that to get things done he must lead, and this cannot be done through hollow words alone.

"The superior leader gets things done with very little motion. He imparts instruction not through many words but through a few deeds. He keeps informed about everything but interferes hardly at all. He is a catalyst, and though things would not get done well if he weren't't there, when they succeed he takes no credit. And because he takes no credit, credit never leaves him." — Lao Tse, Tao Te Ching

Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton were very different politically, but they could lead.  They could walk into a room of people with very different opinions, and have everyone walk out with a shared understanding.  They were very good at making those on both sides of the argument feel like winners at the end of the day.  This attribute has not surfaced in President Obama.

Obama began his presidency with his now famous "I won" quip to slap down his opposition on the stimulus. He had both houses of Congress and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for a long time. Oh, but it's the "republicans fault" that he didn't get everything he wanted. This speech sort of sums up my point:

edited.

[nathanm]

We have seen only corporatism (a throw back to the old Chicago political system).  We have seen bitter infighting.  We have seen a rush to push legislation in an attempt to avoid understanding. 

It amazes me that you attribute what the new tea party-ite majorities in several states are doing to Obama. Sometimes I honestly believe you are as disconnected from reality as shadows, just more able to complete a coherent thought.

[Gaspar]

It amazes me that you attribute what the new tea party-ite majorities in several states are doing to Obama. Sometimes I honestly believe you are as disconnected from reality as shadows, just more able to complete a coherent thought.

What about before the Tea Party?  Who's fault was it then, and why is it always someone else's fault with liberals?

I am beginning to believe that President Obama has never taken responsibility for a single failure.  You can't build any character if you're busy dealing blame.


One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license. – P.J. O'Rourke