Via Andrew Sullivan, I notice Matt Yglesias listing some of the ridiculous Republican talking points about Gitmo:
* The fact that the Bush administration has let dangerous terrorists go free means Obama should keep innocent people detained.
* The fact that the Bush administration screwed up the paperwork on detainees shows that there was more wisdom to Bush’s policies than Obama acknowledged on the campaign trail.
* Obama’s promise of change was empty and hypocritical because it will take time to implement his executive orders.
* The “Guantanamo” issue is primarily about the physical location of the facility rather than the legal status or treatment of the detainees.
* Since many liberals live in San Francisco, anyone who thinks it would be ill-advised to transfer prisoners to a museum in the San Francisco Bay that hasn’t been a prison for decades is a hypocrite.

Apparently, when Republicans vow opposition, it ends up being either largely symbolic, or completely incoherent defenses of Bush policies.

This illustrates the overarching problem the GOP is facing right now: the party is bankrupt of ideas. It doesn't know how to move forward,, it can't agree on which way is forward, and it has no vision for what the future will look like. There will, no doubt, be plenty that the Republicans should rightfully oppose, but if they aren't laying out some kind of overarching plan, it really means nothing.

Perhaps more problematic, the GOP's front trenches have been largely overrun; and their fallback position has been largely obliterated by badly-aimed shelling from the late Republican guns: talk about "smaller government" and "accountability" mean virtually nothing after the Bush years. The party that systematically ignored its own prescriptions while in power can't claim to be going back to them now that they're out of power. As it lashes out to oppose what it can, the party is going to need to put together some coherent ideas on how to move forward.