That is the question that the ACLU asks in this full page ad that they took out in Sunday's New York Times.

Candidate Barack Obama vowed to change the Bush-Cheney policies and restore America ’s values of justice and due process.  Many of us are shocked and concerned that right now, President Obala is considering reversing his attorney general’s decision to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court…As president, Barack Obama must decide whether he will keep his solemn promise to restore our Constitution and due process, or ignore his vow and continye the bush-Cheney policies…

"As president, Barack Obama must decide whether he will keep his solemn promise"?????  Have these people not been watching this first year - a year where EVERY CAMPAIGN PROMISE ever made has had a shelf life of days to weeks?  I can't believe that they were able to that with a straight face.

Time Magazine's Mark Halperin jumped on the Obama as Bush bandwagon today as well.

No chief economic spokesperson
Quick: name all three of George W. Bush's treasury secretaries. Hard to do, isn't it? Like Bush, Obama has failed to install an economic commander-in-chief who can serve as the public face and the in-house honcho of the administration's financial team.

I had hopes that Larry Summers might be that economic spokes person.  I don't always agree with his politics and policies, but he is a brilliant economist and he can do an adequate job of conveying a coherent economic message...when there is one.  Sadly that is one of the biggest things lacking with the Obama economic team - lack of a coherent policy.

Failure to integrate policy, politics, and communication
By the end of Bush's two terms, even some of his supporters were disappointed (and, at times, horrified) by how much of the decision-making at the highest levels of the government were more the result of political machinations than rigorous substantive policy-making.

The heart of the Obama Administration has been political machinations - as we have seen especially during the health care reform debate.

Tying the Adminstration's fate too closely to his own party's congressional leadership

...When Bush ran for president, he, like Obama, suggested he would regularly cross his own party's congressional wing when he thought they were dead wrong. And Obama, like Bush, has lashed himself over and over to the political fortunes of the Capitol Hill portion of his party, allowing the agenda and vision of Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, and a covey of mostly liberal committee chairs to define the public image of the Democratic Party and determine what his administration can accomplish.

My friend Ed Morrissey suggests that the President got "rolled" by the Party Leadership in Congress...

Why did he let Pelosi run wild?   Obama had no experience as an executive, and allowed himself to get rolled by party leadership.  Many of us warned about his inexperience during the campaign.  Obama not only had no experience as an executive, he had very little experience as an effective and active legislator.  It’s not much of a surprise now that Obama has delegated most of the policy work back to his party leadership, which he mostly did in the Senate and in the Illinois legislature.

The real lesson here is not that Obama is making the same mistakes as Bush.  It’s that Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

...but I think even he puts too little emphasis on the complete and utter lack of experience prior to the Presidency that Barack Obama had.  He was completely and totally unprepared for this job and his willing accomplices in the media did everything that they could to gloss it over.  For them to come back a year later with a "wait - he's unqualified to be there" might bring some cold comfort it is still a little too late to restore the already shattered media credibility.