One of BHO's big issues in the '08 campaign was to close Gitmo, and He even made it one of His first directives once in office.

Now we get this year's massive omnibus spending bill released by the Democrats that "refuses to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and would block the transfer of any suspected terrorist detainees to the United States in what appears to be the final blow for President Obama's campaign pledge to shutter the facility." Link

Is this an elite Democrat backlash attempting to have BHO fail after his mimicking of the Bush 43 troop surge in Afghanistan and the extension of the Bush tax cuts?

With the Dems still in charge of both houses of Congress, including provisions in a bill that denies any possibility of a main cause championed by BHO gives an illusion that Dems are throwing BHO under the bus. It doesn't make sense why Dems would be willing to make BHO "get to the back" on this issue.

Apple;592852 wrote:With the Dems still in charge of both houses of Congress, including provisions in a bill that denies any possibility of a main cause championed by BHO gives an illusion that Dems are throwing BHO under the bus. It doesn't make sense why Dems would be willing to make BHO "get to the back" on this issue.

It makes perfect sense. Dems have a long track record of eating their own.

believer... they circled the wagons for WJC.

Since there is no system establish yet for what to do with the detainees, it makes perfect sense to fund the prison for another year.
It is not wanting Obama to fail, it is the realization that cutting the funds for the prison without a proper place or method to try and house them is a bad idea.
Plus, it is the fact that no Senator or Congressman want any detainees on their own soil, which is a silly argument given Federal Supermaxes around the country.

Finally, I was unaware that the President was calling for the funds to be cut for the prison and this vote contradicted his policy. I know he wants it closed, but I'm not sure he has actually called for closing it now.

I believe it is necessary and proper for Gitmo to remain open and functioning as a home to terrorists. I am perfectly fine with having it remain "as is".

The problem, as defined by Apple, is that Obama ran on a platform that he would close it within a year. Now, he's changed his mind I guess. While I agree it's the best thing for America, he has failed miserably on his pledge to his supporters...the 53% that liked him over McCain. Therefore, he is either a liar or incapable of delivering what was promised. If I voted for him, then I would be quite upset with him. Enough to not elect him again? Probably not, but enough that I might not show up to support him either with dollars or a vote in 2012.

Kind of the same thing happened with GHW Bush...his lips moving "lie" cost him his support dearly as those that previously liked him stayed away from the voting booths. I see a parallel with the current occupier.

He's spoken of this before. He, and others, thought it would be simpler to close Gitmo but that obviously hasn't been the case. The Democrats certainly don't want him to fail.

If we didn't vote for everyone who failed at least one campaign promise we'd literally never have an incumbent at any level of government.

BGFalcons82;592946 wrote:I believe it is necessary and proper for Gitmo to remain open and functioning as a home to terrorists. I am perfectly fine with having it remain "as is".

The problem, as defined by Apple, is that Obama ran on a platform that he would close it within a year. Now, he's changed his mind I guess. While I agree it's the best thing for America, he has failed miserably on his pledge to his supporters...the 53% that liked him over McCain. Therefore, he is either a liar or incapable of delivering what was promised. If I voted for him, then I would be quite upset with him. Enough to not elect him again? Probably not, but enough that I might not show up to support him either with dollars or a vote in 2012.

Kind of the same thing happened with GHW Bush...his lips moving "lie" cost him his support dearly as those that previously liked him stayed away from the voting booths. I see a parallel with the current occupier.

I'm not. I knew he would not close Gitmo in a year cause I knew how difficult that would be. Then again, I look at myself as the exception not the rule haha.

ptown_trojans_1;592951 wrote:I'm not. I knew he would not close Gitmo in a year cause I knew how difficult that would be. Then again, I look at myself as the exception not the rule haha.

I agree with you that it wasn't going to happen quickly. I also believed prior to the election that he was merely pandering to the peace-niks on the Left that wanted out of Iraq, Afghan, and rid the U.S. of all reminders of the wars - i.e. close Gitmo. The problem is that he's been caught by his own followers and many view this as a horrible lie on his part. Then to go along with this, he "caves" on taxing the evil rich...and the Left is going bonkers - see Keith O.

Maybe he's seen the light from the November election and is going to triangulate like Slick Willie did. It's not in his makeup to compromise with conservatives; to wit - he had to conjure up a statement that the GOP is against middle class tax cuts in his presser yesterday. Sir Slickness was the most cagey politician I've ever seen, so it was easy for him to do...Obama does not have a track record of it, so this will be interesting to watch. For now, he's really angered his base, so he'll have to make it up to them quickly.

I Wear Pants;592950 wrote:He's spoken of this before. He, and others, thought it would be simpler to close Gitmo but that obviously hasn't been the case. The Democrats certainly don't want him to fail.

If we didn't vote for everyone who failed at least one campaign promise we'd literally never have an incumbent at any level of government.

I'm not totally sold that there isn't a growing Dem faction that sees BHO as not toeing the uber-liberal line and are beginning to make efforts to get someone else who is closer to their ilk into office. Add that to the buyers remorse of BHO by moderates/independents and the steady lowering of BHO's approval ratings, it could lead the Dem elite to want someone else on the '12 ticket other than BHO.

Apple;592964 wrote:I'm not totally sold that there isn't a growing Dem faction that sees BHO as not toeing the uber-liberal line and are beginning to make efforts to get someone else who is closer to their ilk into office. Add that to the buyers remorse of BHO by moderates/independents and the steady lowering of BHO's approval ratings, it could lead the Dem elite to want someone else on the '12 ticket other than BHO.

They radical libs are in a no-win situation. If they get rid of BHO, then they will piss off black and young voters (not that they will vote republican, they will just not vote). If they put a nut job like Pelosi or Harry Reid up there, they would get slaughtered in a national election by any republican with a pulse.

I Wear Pants;592950 wrote:He's spoken of this before. He, and others, thought it would be simpler to close Gitmo but that obviously hasn't been the case

And that comes as a suprise only to Obama's supporters and, maybe even Obama himself. The only substantive change from GWB to BHO has been Obama is spending a lot more money.

When you think about it, there was literally a tidal wave of disgust with the Repubs that swept Obama and the Dems into power, and in only 2 short year they managed to completely turn around that support, a truly remarkable rise and fall. It almost seems like it would take real, conscious effort to accomplish such a level of failure.

Apple;592964 wrote:I'm not totally sold that there isn't a growing Dem faction that sees BHO as not toeing the uber-liberal line and are beginning to make efforts to get someone else who is closer to their ilk into office. Add that to the buyers remorse of BHO by moderates/independents and the steady lowering of BHO's approval ratings, it could lead the Dem elite to want someone else on the '12 ticket other than BHO.

The idea that anything more than a fraction of Democrats are "uber-liberal" is as ridiculous as saying more than a fraction of Republicans are far, far, right wingers. Most are far closer to the middle.

Obama will be the candidate in 2012. I'd bet the farm on it.

If the D's are dumb enough to revolt against Obama, it would be one of the dumbest political decisions by a party of all time.

ptown_trojans_1;593307 wrote:If the D's are dumb enough to revolt against Obama, it would be one of the dumbest political decisions by a party of all time.

Well...we ARE talking about Democrats.

Oh and by the way, you're not exceptional at all. I knew all along Obama wouldn't be able to close Gitmo, just like I knew he wouldn't pull out of Iraq in a year or Afghanistan more quickly.

I knew once he got into office, people who actually know what's going on in the world would sit him down and tell him what the real world is like. It's probably the first time in his life somebody did that.

The only thing that surprises me is that he listened. I think he's an arrogant, egotistical megalomaniac, so having him actually do what's best for the country (and not what HE wants to do) is something I really didn't think would happen.

ptown_trojans_1;593307 wrote:If the D's are dumb enough to revolt against Obama, it would be one of the dumbest political decisions by a party of all time.

You mean the same Dems who put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House?

Writerbuckeye;593438 wrote:The only thing that surprises me is that he listened. I think he's an arrogant, egotistical megalomaniac, so having him actually do what's best for the country (and not what HE wants to do) is something I really didn't think would happen.

I totally agree. I honestly thought that BHO was so in love with himself - he was actually believing he was the Anointed One - that he was incapable of being pragmatic. I'll be honest...his decision to challenge the hard-core Dems on the extension of the tax cuts makes me think that he's slowly beginning to understand the realities of the office.