Courage!

This should not surprise anyone given the nature of this Presidency.

Frustrated liberals are asking why a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House can't manage to close the Guantanamo prison or keep new gun-rights laws from passing.

After all, President Barack Obama pledged to shut down the military detention center on Cuba for suspected terrorists. And Democratic control of the government would suggest that any gun legislation leads to tighter controls on weapons, not expanded use.

After all - a President who voted "present" more than he vote either "aye" or "nay" is bound to not be able to take a firm stand on the issue.

Even as they grouse, however, liberal lawmakers acknowledge that no one factor explains last week's disappointing back-to-back votes in Congress.

The Obama administration is focused on other priorities, they say. Party leaders don't want to endanger Democratic lawmakers from conservative districts by stressing divisive issues such as gun control.

We'll come back to that last sentence in just a brief moment....

On Guantanamo, many say, Obama and his allies were caught napping as Republicans stirred public fears about relocating suspected terrorists.

Yep - those darned Republicans like Max Bacchus, Ben Nelson, Mark Warner, Diane Feinstein and Jim Webb all stopped President Obama's plans to close Gitmo....I mean for crying out loud, the vote in the Senate alone was 90-6. There are NOT 90 Republicans in the Senate.

But the excuse that I found to be most enlightening was the excuse offered up by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) on why the national parks gun bill (which allows legal permit holders the ability to take their firearms into national parks) sailed through the House and Senate and will be signed by the President.

"We'll probably end up passing more gun bills" that expand owners' rights "than we did during the Republican administration," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun control advocate. "That is what surprises me."

She placed less blame on the White House than on ordinary Americans and advocacy groups that are consistently outflanked by gun owners' groups, especially the National Rifle Association.

"Until the American people say enough is enough, and get active in it," Democratic control of Congress and the White House will not be enough to turn the tide, said McCarthy, whose husband was killed by a gunman in 1993.

Emphasis mine. Never mind the fact that they have overwhelming majorities in both Houses, the Democrat know that they do not dare vote in too many gun controls out of fear of losing power. While for many that is some cold comfort, it should show everyone (especially their liberal supporters) that these Democrats ONLY care about getting an maintaining power. Principles don't matter if those principles could end up costing you the election. (Granted a vast majority of the current crop of Republicans in DC are also bitten with that bug - but that is another post for another day....)

Or not....I am reminded of a time, back during the Clinton Administration. I, along with many other Minnesotans, had written to our then Senator Paul Wellstone about a particular vote he was about to take. The Senator's answer is one that I will never forget. He said that while he understood our disagreement with him on this particular issue, he could not IN GOOD CONSCIENCE set his principles aside in order to make the "popular" vote. Obviously this generation of "Democratic" legislators do not share the late Senator's courage.

Are there ANY in this current crop of politicians( from either party) that share the late Senator's courage? I think that there may be a couple of promising lights out there, but they are all so new to DC. DC has changed more than a few who went there on their "principles". Even Senator Wellstone had his principles changed in the end - he campaigned on the principle of term limits - saying he would only serve two terms and then he would term limit himself out and yet when the time came he ran for that third term - a campaign that in the end, proved to be his physical demise. Would he still be alive today if he hadn't run that third campaign? Who knows...even if he had not run, he could have been on that plane in that storm to go up to that debate as an advisor to his successor...we will never know for sure. But one thing that we do know is abandoning your principles - principles that you campaigned on - for political gain will in the end lose any political advantage that you may gained. Is it really worth it?