This Can’t Be Right

Filed in National by on December 28, 2009

The Obama Administration asked for funds to buy a prison in Illinois to transfer Gitmo prisoners to:

Rebuffed this month by skeptical lawmakers when it sought finances to buy a prison in rural Illinois, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with the money to replace the Guantánamo Bay prison.

As a result, officials now believe that they are unlikely to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer its population of terrorism suspects until 2011 at the earliest — a far slower timeline for achieving one of President Obama’s signature national security policies than they had previously hinted.

While Mr. Obama has acknowledged that he would miss the Jan. 22 deadline for closing the prison that he set shortly after taking office, the administration appeared to take a major step forward last week when he directed subordinates to move “as expeditiously as possible” to acquire the Thomson Correctional Center, a nearly vacant maximum-security Illinois prison, and to retrofit it to receive Guantánamo detainees.

So.

There are people here who keep telling me that if only Obama would just be clear and ask Congress for specifically what he wants, they would just give it to him. But here we see that not only have they asked (and asked multiple times if you count previous requests for funding to close Gitmo), but Congress has said No! WTF! Where is the outrage that Congress is not doing what the President wants? Where is the effort to remind Congress that their job consists of making sure that the President gets everything he proposes? Or even better, an effort to do away with that pesky Congress anyway. Because I can’t believe that the President has asked for specific funds and authority to close Gitmo that Congress just won’t give him.

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (85)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nemski says:

    Everything was peaceful and quiet, but NOOOO! you had to post this. ;-)

  2. I thought the president could do whatever he wants with a swipe of a pen?

  3. cassandra_m says:

    The wine made me do it!

    Besides, I’m waiting to hear how Obama should threaten to dissolve Congress or some such to get what he wants. Because George W Bush threatened to do just that to get parts of his agenda passed. Or something like that.

    It is why Social Security is privatized.

    Oh wait.

  4. Observer says:

    Yeah, imagine that — Americans don’t want to transfer any more terrorists onto American soil. WTF is that about? Don’t they know that these folks are really just misguided youth, and that a little rehabilitation time in a federal penitentiary will make them our friends?

  5. Von Cracker says:

    If these pants-pissers are so upset and afraid of criminals that use terror as a weapon being on American soil, I want to see them protest and try to shut down all judicial proceedings for this failed Nigerian wannabe.

    Otherwise, they’re just hypocrites…as if it wasn’t already confirmed.

    oh, btw Observer – fucking sarcasm fail. What say you about my point above?

  6. anonone says:

    Obomba has shown himself to be a weak, vacillating, and unprincipled leader who is easily pushed around by the likes of Joe LIEberman. Now others are jumping in to steal his lunch money.

  7. Von Cracker says:

    Incarcerated Los Tigres, Crips, and White Brotherhood members are a bunch of wimps – bearded fucks with a dashiki can kick their ass or turn them with the ol jedi mind trick….

    typical conservative – taking the exception and making it the rule….or in other words, making the most implausible possible…in their own disturbed mind.

  8. cassandra_m says:

    Hypocrites is exactly right, VC.

    Where is the outrage that this Nigerian wannabe is locked up in an American jail, has been treated in an American hospital and has been read actual American charges for his stupidity?

    Oh right, its hypocrisy day for the GOP.

  9. pandora says:

    I think Observer thinks America is completely incompetent. In his eyes, we are simply not up to the job.

  10. anon says:

    There are people here who keep telling me that if only Obama would just be clear and ask Congress for specifically what he wants, they would just give it to him.

    That is exactly what happened.

    I thought the president could do whatever he wants with a swipe of a pen?

    He got an individual mandate, didn’t he? That was the last thing voters wanted, but he got it.

    It is why Social Security is privatized.

    Oh wait.

    Exactly. At least they had the smarts to withdraw *their* privatization plan. Our privatization plan however will be signed into law.

  11. cassandra_m says:

    Ah. Speaking of hypocrisy.

    And here is A1 without an explanation but with lots of name-calling.

  12. cassandra_m says:

    That would be Bullshit, anon.

    It is really plain that Obama has been asking for funds and authority to close Gitmo and Congress isn’t exactly rolling over they way you keep claiming they will do if he would just ask.

    In interesting how all of that works.

  13. anon says:

    I was talking about health care, not Gitmo. That is why I quote the comment I am responding to. Can I get a “crayon” feature to circle it?

  14. cassandra_m says:

    Perhaps, but it might be more useful to remind you that the current homework is Gitmo and you need to explain how it is that the Obama Admin has been doing what you complain he doesn’t and yet the Congress still won’t go along.

    Simple enough, yes?

  15. nemski says:

    Funny, Observer, the town in Illinois where the prison is located wants the Gitmo prisoners.

  16. Observer says:

    Frankly, this Nigerian scumbag should have received a lethal injection of 9mm of lead to the base of the skull right on the tarmac, rather than medical treatment and criminal charges.

  17. pandora says:

    Oh my, do people really talk like this? How embarrassing, and stooopid. Yeah, let’s just kill him. Why bother questioning him and trying to get information. I think Observer has a lot more in common with the “Nigerian scumbag” then he realizes.

  18. Personally I’d like to find out who he’s working with, if anyone. If we have an actual al Qaeda member maybe we can find something out. Of course, just summarily executing people makes chickenhawks feel better I guess.

  19. Delaware Dem says:

    Observer, and those like him, are cowards. They are afraid of terrorists.

    Anonone, and those like him, are just mindless idiots. They have decided, like petulant children, that they are not going to get all that they want, so now they want nothing from the President but his failure. If anonone had any credibility or intelligence, he would be defending Obama here for trying to enact his campaign promise and lambasting those preventing it from happening. But nooooo.

  20. nemski says:

    I was reading that this terrorist’s father is a Nigerian banker. Apparently, his dad and I have been in touch via email for some years now.

  21. cassandra_m says:

    OMG! I know that banker too!

  22. anonone says:

    “mindless idiots”

    Thanks, DD!

    I don’t want Obomba to fail at all. I want him to develop a spine and stop lying, which is something that I remember people here used to wish that progressive Democrats would do.

    But as long as lilly-livered liberals like yourself are happy eating the crumbs tossed to you under the table, it is crumbs you will get. Yum!

    HCR 2009 = WMD 2002 Obomba lies while reform dies.

  23. xstryker says:

    Obserwr only likes the constitution when it does what he wants it to. When it protects someone he doesn’t want protected, he hates that piece of paper. Oh, it would be so much easier for him if this was a dictatorship – and he was the dictator.

  24. xstryker says:

    Anyone who’s afraid of incarcerating terrorists ought to actually find out what Supermax is like, and check out the list of terrorists we’ve already got locked up.

  25. Observer says:

    Given his arrest and the criminal charges, we cannot question him without an attorney present or a grant of immunity.

    On the other hand, a trip to Gitmo and classification as an enemy combatant would have allowed us to apply the techniques of the Army Field Manual to get the information we need.

    The policy of treating terrorists as criminals rather than as enemy combatants denies us the ability to get the sort of info we might have otherwise have been able to get.

    (Hell, I personally would like to see him waterboarded — preferably on live television during prime time, on all broadcast networks.)

  26. Observer says:

    I’m not familiar with Supermax, but lived a few miles from Marion when it was the nation’s top prison, and know plenty about it from friends who worked there and from family members who filmed documentaries there.

  27. Observer says:

    now they want nothing from the President but his failure

    As opposed to rational people, who have never expected him to be more than a failure.

  28. anon says:

    I’m forming a band called “A Lethal Injection of 9mm of Lead to the Base of the Skull Right On the Tarmac.” Any drummers out there?

  29. Suzanne says:

    Between anon, Observer, and some of the others, I keep feeling like I need a shower each time I read DL.

    I am with Cassandra – Congress needs to do what it can to help the President close down Gitmo. Congress needs to do what it can to help the whole political process along no matter what – you can’t bitch about nothing getting done if you are part of the blockage.

    ..as for he Nigerian Banker – is he the one that sent me that 10K check to cash..??????

  30. just kiddin says:

    I keep telling you we don’t have a “democratic party” anymore. We have the “new dems” “corporate dems” starting with the first black pres Mr. Clinton”. He was more of a republican than imagined. NAFTA, CAFTA? Remember that? Now we have Obama who is nothing more than a super capitalist owned by Goldman Sachs and big business. Obama did a complete turnaround after the election. He talks a good game, but doesnt deliver on all that hope and change. Obama is weak, naive and has no leadership qualities. He is obviously too weak to stand up to the elitists, so he joined them.

    As far as the Nigerian bankers son….you believin all that nonsense. CNN hyped this whole thing, adding speculation as fact. Peter King the right wing loon was quick on the draw. The first neo con out of the box to make a statement and the investigation isnt even complete. I thought 8 years of fear mongering and terrorizing the american people was over when we got Obama. Be afraid, be very afraid! OMG its all such a bullshit chess game with pundits playing the same ole tune. Congress and the Senate are no longer “party members”, they view themselves as independent of the Presidunce, and equal to him. We have absolute deadlock in the Senate and the Congress and this is with a majority of demorats! Go figure.

  31. pandora says:

    Congress and the Senate are no longer “party members”, they view themselves as independent of the Presidunce, and equal to him.

    Umm… Congress is a separate branch of government, equal to the Executive branch. Just sayin’.

  32. liberalgeek says:

    Just Kiddin is now and has always been a loon of the first order.

  33. Observer says:

    But he does have a point. As elections have become more about candidates and less about parties and platforms, each of our elected legislators has become much more of a free agent than he/she would have been even a generation ago.

    Of course, one of the other problems is the existence of open primaries. When primaries were closed, party members had the ability to pick candidates who were consistent with the party platform and punish those who were not. Now we find ourselves getting “mush middlers” (RINOs and Blue Dogs) who can’t be counted on to have any party discipline.

    That’s part of why I’d like to amend our Constitution to create a parliamentary system.

  34. liberalgeek says:

    What I love is that America can’t decide if Obama is a Socialist or a super-capitalist.

  35. donviti says:

    I’m still waiting to see who was to blame for 06 to 08 problems Cassy? Please do tell….dooooooooo tell.

  36. anonone says:

    “loon of the first order”

    If Delaware Liberal were a radio station, its slogan would be “All establishment, all the time.”

  37. donviti says:

    Talking Point Deux is sort of clever

  38. cassandra_m says:

    Yo Donnie — can’t come to grips with the fact that Congress has a say in governing yet, huh? I mean, here is Obama asking for the tools to close Gitmo and, lo! Congress says no.

    So when do you start your sellout jihad on Congress?

  39. Delaware Dem says:

    I am just amazed at how Donviti has embraced the Cheney Unitary Executive theory of governance.

  40. liberalgeek says:

    A1 – I am starting to think that you have a diagnosable disorder. I’ll not get into the same bullshit that you have been stirring up with the rest of the team lately. You are welcome to think that we are “all establishment, all the time” but you are not only wrong, but you are isolating yourself as someone that cannot distinguish between real, valid differences of opinion and disagreeable disagreement.

  41. delacrat says:

    cassandra_m,

    Gitmo is not being closed. It’s being relocated.

  42. liberalgeek says:

    Ummm. No, the extra-legal prison in Gitmo is being closed. A legal prison is going to house the prisoners there.

  43. donviti says:

    Yawn, try again on a less formidable opponent. :)

    I’m surprised how many here have taken to blaming congress yet have short term memories of a previous administration’s woes of inability to get things done with a Dem Majority.

    lol, ahhhhhhh I kill me….no I’m really not that was sarcasm

    wooooooooo I’m on fire!

  44. pandora says:

    DV is a legend in his own mind.

  45. donviti says:

    Delaware’s first ever hottest blogger! And you can’t take that away from me ever!

  46. donviti says:

    I’m fine with the fact that the President is merely a figure head and congress holds all the power Cassandra. That way I don’t need to make excuses when something bad happens and when something good happens Congress will get the credit.

    I’m still waiting to see who is to blame for 06 to 08 Cassy. This post seems to highlight pretty well that Bush is hardly to blame for many of the messes.

    After all with a Dem Majority since 2006 pretty much all the shit going down since then would be Obama’s fault no?

    I’m trying to use your logic so forgive me if I’m not making sense.

  47. cassandra_m says:

    Well you aren’t using my logic if you think that this is what is going on:

    I’m fine with the fact that the President is merely a figure head and congress holds all the power Cassandra.

    But hey. Keep thinking that you are a formidable opponent. That is likely why you can’t be bothered to understand anyone else’s position but your own.

  48. donviti says:

    06 to 08 Cassy. Please, ohhhh please give me some wisdom on who was responsible.

    I’m perplexed why you can’t seem to address this small issue.

    It seems congress must be. I have to assume that is your position. As you are so sternly propping up this post as an example of Congress being to blame and Obama not being at fault.

  49. anonone says:

    Hey Liberalgeek,

    Before you try to diagnose me, perhaps you should look at the names and labels that the writers on this site have called anybody who dares to strongly disagree with Obama, points out his dishonesty, and expresses profound disappointment with his weak leadership on issues important to progressives. Then come and tell me with a straight face that I am the one who “cannot distinguish between real, valid differences of opinion and disagreeable disagreement.”

    And perhaps then you might understand why I feel little compunction about satirizing what a pro-establishment site DL has become. It didn’t use to be that way.

  50. donviti says:

    I know how all you contributors like to speak for one another and gang up on commenters. Can’t one of you answer who was to blame from 06-08.

    Can’t Cassy’s logic in this post be applied to 06-08?

  51. nemski says:

    I guess I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

  52. nemski says:

    dv, i’ll speak for Cassandra here and even everyone else, no one here is a fan of Congress whether it is the ’09 or ’06 variety.

  53. pandora says:

    I’ve answered this before, but let me say it again. The Dems we are upset with now are, in most part, the same Dems that voted with Bush. In fact, Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War probably cost her the nomination. The Patriot Act was passed with Dem support as well. Seems that these two things resulted in the Progressive slogan: Not just more Dems, better Dems.

    And, in the end, Obama will bear the brunt of health care’s failure or success, just like Bush.

  54. cassandra_m says:

    06 to 08 Cassy.

    And way to keep dodging the point of this post. Your formidable opponent skills apparently don’t extend to noticing that the writer of this post doesn’t fall for this very often. But keep avoiding the point of this post, Donnie. That is looking more and more formidable all of the time.

  55. John Manifold says:

    Notice how A1’s teabags now focuses on he-man imagery?

    “weak, vacillating … lilly-livered [sic] liberals”

  56. donviti says:

    that was a non answer Cassy. I’m still waiting
    funny that on 2 or 3 different posts I have posted this question and you have dodged it. Why is that?

    I consent you are wayyyy smarter than me.

    Now, that I have paid homage to your intelligence. Answer my question. Who was responsible for 06-08?

  57. donviti says:

    Non answer nemski

    dv, i’ll speak for Cassandra here and even everyone else, no one here is a fan of Congress whether it is the ‘09 or ‘06 variety.

    lets be a little more specific. I’m not very bright like Cassy is. so break it down for me.

    Congress was at fault and not the president? Both? Just Bush. I’m really curious. I don’t care if you are a fan or not. I want to know if (like this post) you blame congress for what happened back then.

    That’s what this post is doing….blaming congress.

  58. donviti says:

    he Dems we are upset with now are, in most part, the same Dems that voted with Bush. In fact, Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War probably cost her the nomination. The Patriot Act was passed with Dem support as well. Seems that these two things resulted in the Progressive slogan: Not just more Dems, better Dems.

    And, in the end, Obama will bear the brunt of health care’s failure or success, just like Bush.

    I know you have answered it Pandora and I thank you for blaming both President Obama and his congress. You aren’t the problem over here. It’s the registered Democrats that are :)

  59. anonone says:

    John,

    I am sorry to disappoint whatever weirdly insightful point that you were trying to make, but none of the adjectives that I used are gender specific or have gender references. But I guess you’ll use any excuse that you can make up to refer to my “teabags.” I hope that it was good for you.

  60. anonone says:

    Actually, I think pandora is the only one here that hasn’t called anyone any names.

    pandora, in the end it was and is the American people who are bearing the brunt of Bush’s failures, many much more tragically than others.

    And in the very near future, and perhaps for a long time thereafter, it will be the American people who bear the brunt of Obama and the Dems failure to reform healthcare and also make the situation worse for millions of Americans.

    In 2012, not just a Democratic President, but a better Democratic President.

  61. cassandra_m says:

    That’s what this post is doing….blaming congress.

    So now Donnie, we are actually back to the topic of this post — the Obama administration asks Congress for funds to close Gitmo and relocate prisoners and gets told No. More than once. You’ve been telling us that Obama just has to ask the Congress for what he wants and he’ll get it. So even after asking more than once on a signature bit of policy, this Congress isn’t cooperating. Not exactly the way you keep telling us this thing works, right?

  62. Lizard says:

    comment moderation… memory hole 3.0

  63. Brian Shields says:

    Another Bush blunder putting them in Gitmo to begin with. Too close, to easy to be high profile. If this was in some forgettable middle eastern county.. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Crapistan or some other -stan… then this mess wouldn’t have happened. They could have been secretly dropped off of a plane in the middle of the Atlantic and noone would be the wiser. Problem solved.

  64. Observer says:

    Seems to me that this sort of stuff is proof of how ineffective a leader Obama really is. If he cannot get a Congress his party overwhelmingly controls to back his policies, then he clearly lacks the competence to hold the office to which he was elected.

  65. anonone says:

    Brian Shields wrote: “They could have been secretly dropped off of a plane in the middle of the Atlantic and noone would be the wiser. Problem solved.”

    Is this the Libertarian idea of justice?

  66. donviti says:

    and you still haven’t addressed my question. So, now who is the petulant one I ask?

    You wont answer not because you are better than me but because this stupid post does nothing but prove me right. Both the President and the Congress are at fault. Yet, when Bush had a Dem Majority he was still able to get things done.

    Like it or not, it’s about leadership which you wont address b/c that path leads you to a losing argument. But you started the argument with this post. You know it. Your buddies know it.

    So, Obama is as much to blame for this mess as Bush would have been between 06 and 08.

    But, Obama is more to blame b/c he has his own Party in Power and still can’t get shit passed.

    Blame it on the Congress and try to place all the blame there but you can’t. “Obama asked congress” They said “no” so now what? Your argument is that he asked and they said no? Wow, that’s some effective leadership if I do say so myself.

    This is as much Obama’s fault as it is the shitty bunch of sell outs in Congress.

    Politics as usual though. Which seems to be ok with some people here as well

  67. donviti says:

    Brian,

    This mess could be solved if they all weren’t guilty and covering their asses. Instead b/c so many of our “leaders” have their hands stained with torture blood we can’t do what is right.

    They could do it right if they wanted to uphold the laws of this country. But they wont’ In the end,that isn’t solely on Bush, it rest on the people in Congress currently and the President.

  68. pandora says:

    I disagree with your conclusions, DV. Here’s the problem…

    Bush implemented his policies with the help of Congress. That makes Congress responsible for helping Bush achieve his goals. It also makes Bush responsible for laying out those goals. Bush gets all the blame for the goal of privatizing social security because Congress wouldn’t help him. Bush and the Congress share the blame for the Iraq War.

    Obama can’t implement his policies because Congress votes No. That makes Congress responsible for blocking his goals.

    The President can be held accountable for implementation of what he wanted. However, if Congress blocks his goals then it’s Congress’ fault. (And, fault can be a positive or a negative, depending on where you stand on an issue.)

    Say you’re president of a condo association and you won the position by promising to upgrade the fire sprinkler system. When the issue comes up for a vote the council votes No. A week later there’s a fire. Whose fault would that be? Just for fun, imagine if you had run, and won, on the position of removing all fire sprinklers, and the council agreed. Does the blame shift?

  69. anonone says:

    pandora, you are right to the extent that Obama would actually fight for his goals.

    One of my greatest disappointments in him is that he talks about winning the game, but when it is time to play, he doesn’t show up and he forfeits. And then he lies and makes up excuses for losing.

    I can respect a leader who fights and loses. I don’t respect one who is all talk and no fight.

  70. pandora says:

    To me, Obama has always seemed to be a behind the scenes kinda guy. I say seemed because I have no idea what Obama did or didn’t do behind the scenes – and neither do you. I can only draw my conclusions from the Dem primary and the general election. At those times some people were upset for the same reasons they are today – “Obama needs to fight,” “He can’t throw a punch,” etc.

    His laid-back, Spock-like style hasn’t changed, imo. During those times many people viewed his calmness as a big asset. Seriously, how is President Obama’s approach to governing different from candidate Obama’s approach to campaigning?

    I guess what really surprises me is the sudden shock over who we elected. I’m not shocked. I knew before I went into the voting booth that I was voting for a centrist, and my hope was that I’d agree with him at least 70% of the time. That was where I set the bar.

  71. anonone says:

    pandora asked: ‘Seriously, how is President Obama’s approach to governing different from candidate Obama’s approach to campaigning?”

    I guess if you look back now and see that he was lying about what he was going to do, then you’re right. His “for it after I said I was against it” FISA vote was an excellent early indicator of this.

    Unfortunately, if Obama is a “a behind the scenes kinda guy,” he isn’t doing a very good job either behind the scenes or in front of them relative to what he could be doing to push the progressive change that he asked us to hope for. In many cases, he is doing the opposite.

  72. pandora says:

    So much bitterness, A1. And I’m reaching the conclusion that most of it is self-directed.

    And, if you wouldn’t mind, could you back up this statement with specifics.

    Unfortunately, if Obama is a “a behind the scenes kinda guy,” he isn’t doing a very good job either behind the scenes or in front of them relative to what he could be doing to push the progressive change that he asked us to hope for. In many cases, he is doing the opposite.

    I get that you think Obama sucks, but your claim above is quite vague. And, yes, I’ve asked this question before, and your response was that my question was meaningless. Nice.

  73. anon says:

    I don’t think Obama sucks. I just hate how he squandered the HCR opportunity. It is a bad sign for future battles. But that hasn’t made me start compiling laundry lists of why Obama sucks. I’m pretty much OK with Obama so far.

    For me the next test will be whether Obama keeps his campaign promises to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich but keep them for the middle class. If he compromises that away too then I will scrawl out an Obama Sucks sign.

    Remember just like HCR, Obama’s starting position on taxes is already a compromise. One of the biggest Bush tax cuts for the rich was to cut the taxes on dividends to 15% (they were previously taxed as regular income with a top rate of 39%). But Obama’s campaign promise is to raise the taxes on dividends only to 20%, not to let them expire to their pre-Bush levels.

    And of course if jobs and a widespread prosperity come back, all will be forgiven on taxes, HCR, or anything else.

    I am still pissed about the Patriot Act and surveillance/data mining, but Obama never campaigned to end that so my expectations were never high there.

  74. donviti says:

    Pandora your argument would be great if Bush wasn’t a Republican with a Dem Majority and Obama wasn’t a Dem with a Dem Majority in Both houses.

    Obama can’t implement his policies because Congress votes No. That makes Congress responsible for blocking his goals.

    And a Democratic Majority voted yes for Bush? Why is that? That makes him responsible as well.

    I respect your argument and the lack of name calling or condescension. But, your argument doesn’t stack up when you apply it two years ago.

    The variable in this case is the President. The president is different. How did an R President get things done with the opposition party in power? How? How? How?

    Why can’t Obama with HIS OWN PARTY IN POWER get them to vote his own fucking agenda? HOW? BUSH GOT HIS PARTY TO DO IT?????

    Obama is a weak leader and doesn’t have the muscle that Bush did.

    I realize that conceding on this point is hard because then we admit that Obama is not an effective leader. And 12 months in, that is not a good thing to admit.

    But, it is shaping up to be true.

  75. anonone says:

    pandora,

    Is playing psychologist a new strategy for Delaware Liberal writers to ridicule commenters that you don’t agree with? Do you folks view strong opposition to Obama as a disorder? Did you like it when you were told that you had Bush Derangement Syndrome?

    Specifics. These are all big areas where he has lied or done the opposite of what he promised:

    HCR (numerous lies and broken promises)
    Taxes on middle class
    FISA
    GLBT rights
    Wall Street reform
    State secrets and open government reform
    Reduced influence of lobbyists

    Tell us all again why this guy should be trusted ever again?

  76. A. price says:

    everything you point out is blocked by the republicans a1. we have a system of checks and balances in this country, in case you forgot from the bush years when the demo-wimps rolled over and let Bush have his way with them. Now, no matter what is good for the country, the republicans will stand against the president and stop any and all they can.
    look at the situation with the TSA. there is no director because of the republicans and we were almost attacked for it. ELECTED officials scream their filth at the president in the middle of sessions of congress.
    I agree with your sense of let down about health care and about bail outs for Vicrim Pandit, but you have STILL failed to explain, other than by means of making himself a dictator how these obstructionist morons can be beaten.
    I think Obama’s biggest problem was a campaign promise that he IS keeping, and that is to try at all to include the republicans.

  77. pandora says:

    You are being deliberately dense, DV, and I realize you think you have a point, but, alas, you don’t. You’re comparing apples to oranges. You’re also ignoring historical content. 2006 is not 2008. Also, most of the “successes” you cite occurred before 2007.

    So, let me say this AGAIN. Bush was not dealing with an opposition party that voted No on everything. Like it, or not, this is a game changer. It creates the 60 vote or nothing scenario. Bush got his agenda through with the very same Dems we are having trouble with today.

    And I will not admit Obama isn’t a good leader after 12 months. Hell, I wasn’t calling out Bush until he took us into Iraq.

    Now, if you want to blame those specific Dems for giving Bush what he wanted and saying No to Obama, you’ll get no argument from me. I’m just having a hard time understanding why you think Ds like Bayh, Nelson, etc. would have changed their positions once Obama was elected. And now they’re already saying they won’t/can’t support cap and trade. How you gonna make them?

  78. Delaware Dem says:

    With the magic wand that Donviti thinks exists.

  79. anonone says:

    Sorry, you’re incorrect a.price. Everything in that list Obama has failed on and/or lied about. You’re making DVs point precisely: you can’t keep blaming the repubs for Obama’s failures and lies.

  80. donviti says:

    No, pandora are you?

    So, let me say this AGAIN. Bush was not dealing with an opposition party that voted No on everything.

    And why was that Pandora? Why weren’t they Voting NO on everything? What is the reason Pandora? Politics maybe? The style of Politics Bush played? The way he governed? The way he used his POWER? The way he used his pulpit? They were politically chicken shit to go against the President. And we blasted them for being chicken shit. Now all of a sudden their own Party gets a President and they find a spine?

    Why is it I’m being dense but you fail to see the variable is the President? Yes, I blame Congress, but I also blame Obama. A Republian President got the other party to Vote for him. A democratic President can’t get his own people to vote for him. You blame Congress I blame Both.

    I don’t treat them as mutually exclusive because the variable is the President. The only thing that has changed Pandora is we now have a Dem President and EVEN MORE Democrats in office then Bush did and we still can’t get them in line? WHY?

    Now, if you want to blame those specific Dems for giving Bush what he wanted and saying No to Obama, you’ll get no argument from me. I’m just having a hard time understanding why you think Ds like Bayh, Nelson, etc. would have changed their positions once Obama was elected. And now they’re already saying they won’t/can’t support cap and trade. How you gonna make them?

    I’m not going to point individual fingers and not point one at Obama when 2 years ago Bush got these guys to vote for him.

    Just yesterday you were saying that you don’t like the politics that go on but accept them to get your agenda passed. Now, all of a sudden you can’t fathom a way to get these fucktards to vote for Obama’s agenda? I don’t get the disconnect.

    If it gets my agenda completed then use Bush/Cheyney style Politics. Instead, we have a “behind the scenes” aka weak leader letting the aristocracy that is the Senate run the country.

    in 2006 Bush got the opposition party to vote with him.

    in 2009 Obama has a Dem majority and can’t get a majority to vote with him.

    You tell me the difference?

  81. pandora says:

    Sorry, A1, but I’d suggest you go back and read your comments from the last few weeks. There is no debate or discussion with you. You’re right and I’m a naive, shill for the insurance company who wants to screw over the American people.

    So, in order for me not to take your comments personally, I shifted the blame to you. A classic relationship maneuver. But, perhaps, I should take your comments personally? Perhaps you do believe I’m a naive, shill for the insurance company who wants to screw over the American people.

  82. anonone says:

    pandora wrote: “Hell, I wasn’t calling out Bush until he took us into Iraq.”

    Which gives us exceptional insight into your judgement, considering the disaster that Bush was even prior to going into Iraq.

  83. anonone says:

    pandora, although I am right, I never ever called you “a naive, shill for the insurance company who wants to screw over the American people.” But you’ve seen the names your fellow bloggers have been calling any commenter who dares to criticize Obama.

    You don’t have to take anything I write personally. Just bring your facts to the table.

    I did answer your question, by the way.

  84. cassandra m says:

    Awfully rich for a1 to be demanding facts from anyone, when his own argument largely consists of “the man is trying to oppress me”. And dancing away from the detail of everyone else’s arguments. Because we can’t let other pov’s get in the way, you know.

    And we still have Donnie here still trying to hijack an arguement — still spectacularly clueless on the differences between the D and R caucuses and still avoiding the very clear point of this post. But maybe there is something “formidable” in that that only he can see.