No matter our disagreements with the President, why are we so afraid to say this...

[stevietheman]

"Barack Obama is a good President. He actually cares and generally does the nation proud."

[BeyondGeography]

1. Because

The Democratic base...is a loose coalition that elects a new president and then goes home, expecting the new president to deliver miracles.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/08/04/robert_reich_enthusiasm_gap/index.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. yes the public does expect miracles

if the GOP had been for the people instead of against the people we would be further on in his agenda.

[Radical Activist]

21. Yes, that really is it.

I think a fair number of people who supported someone else in the primary and held their nose to vote Obama are disappointed because they didn't listen to what he was offering. He asked for people to do more than go home and expect miracles. Now they're sitting at home angry while they wait for Obama to do it all for them.

[niceypoo]

58. People are angry because.....

...Obama gives up the farm too easily.

The healthcare bill and the financial reform bills are perfect examples of this. Neither address the root cause of the problems. Both compromised into oblivion for the sake of non existent 'bipartisanship'

[havocmom]

3. because the statement is only half true

And many are reality/truth orientated.

[Aramchek]

22. orientated is not a word in reality/truth

[havocmom]

30. You are correct, I am a bad speller who tends to add extraneous letters

Except, Merriam Webster agrees with me on this one :P

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orientated

orientated

2 entries found.

1. orientated (adjective)
2. orientate (verb)

Misspelled, or shall we say misunderstood, word is all you got to refute me with?

I call it a win.

P.S. the word which is not a word you may be thinking of is 'disorientated'. FWIW

[QC]

33. Actually, it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orientated

[Flying Dream Blues]

46. Yes, it is, actually. The English (and others) say orientated vs. oriented and

it is starting to gain in usage here as well. Darn that BBC! :)

[Webster Green]

4. I doubt anyone is "afraid" to say that.

I haven't said it, but I certainly wouldn't be afraid to say it, if it were true.

What a silly post.

[flyarm]

5. If Bush was doing this you would be screaming and your heads would explode!

What the Heck Are US Marines Doing in Costa Rica? Obama's Tilt to the Right on Latin America
Friday 06 August 2010
by: Nikolas Kozloff, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8896570

[spartan61]

6. The President can't do it all alone.

The Congress and the President have to do it together. As long as the repukes keep obstructing, (and we all know why they are obstructiong. Can you say elections?) all the promises that President Obama made during the campaign will be hard to accomplish. I am so proud of what he has been able to accomplish in spite of the repukes and, of course, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Can you just imagine how much good could have been done if everyone had worked together?

[flyarm]

8. Oh but he has..

remember Habeas Corpus? He promised to restore??

How about renditions?..still happening

Torture..we farm it out with renditions..still going on

Gitmo?..still Open

Illegal Wiretapping of Americans..still going on ..and Obama Admin gave the criminals immunity!

Gave up many of womens reproductive rights in the new HCR

Fucking teachers and Public schools daily!

that is just a small list..

[Webster Green]

11. The Gulf of Cheney clusterfuck should be on that list.

BP was in charge from day one, and they are still in charge. All the government agencies involved are taking orders from BP, as they have from the beginning. The use of toxic dispersant to hide the oil, gathering marine life carcasses in the dead of night to hide the evidence, forcing workers to forego safety gear or be fired, preventing media access from documenting the damage, lying about the amount of oil gushed into the sea.......all allowed or assisted by our own government.

Disgraceful! :thumbsdown:

[flyarm]

18. You are 100% correct ..thank you! that I should have had at the top of the list..

but the list gets longer by the freaking day!

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. Yes, the Congress has some pathetic DLC shitbags fucking up any attempt at progress

But President Obama filled his cabinet with the very same pathetic DLC shitbags. And since the cabinet's constitutional role is to advise the President (which you will find right on whitehouse.gov) then Obama chose the wrong people to advise him. Or let someone else choose the wrong people for him, depending on whom you believe actually picked the cabinet.

Sad thing is, it's a Republican cabinet. And I don't just mean the people like Gates who were literally holdovers from the Bush Crime Family. But more like the now standard Repuke playbook of putting industry shills in charge of the cabinet position which is supposed to keep that industry in check. (like Monsatan shill Tom Vilsuck at Agriculture. Or Ken "drill baby drill" Salazar at Interior. Or a chief of staff who is on record as referring to the traditional base of the Democratic party as "fucking retards", and opposed every effort made by the previous Democratic party chair to repair this party from the damage done to it by the DLC, despite the fact that those very efforts (i.e. the 50 state strategy) made the congressional majorities of 2006 and Obama's own election in 2008 possible.

So no, with an executive branch that fucked up, you can't put all the blame on Congress.

[flyarm]

7. If Bush did this you would be screaming bloody murder..just as those of us on the Gulf are!

Some scientists can't be bought by BP or our government!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8897325

'Just Not True': White House Accused of Spinning Report http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/08/06-3

Published on Friday, August 6, 2010 by the Guardian/UK

'Just Not True': White House Accused of Spinning Report

Scientists say it is 'just not true' that the vast majority of oil from the BP spill has gone

by Suzanne Goldenberg

The White House was accused today of spinning a government scientific report into the amount of oil left in the Gulf of Mexico from the BP spill which had officials declaring that the vast majority of the oil had been removed.

<snip>

"Recent reports seem to say that about 75% of the oil is taken care of and that is just not true," said John Kessler, of Texas A&M University, who led a National Science Foundation on-site study of the spill. "The fact is that 50% to 75% of the material that came out of the well is still in the water. It's just in a dissolved or dispersed form."

<snip>

In Louisiana, state wildlife officials told CNN that tar balls and patches of oil were still washing up in the marshes and coastal areas of St Bernard, Plaquemines and Jefferson parishes.

Susan Shaw, a marine toxicologist and director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, said the White House had been too quick to declare the oil was gone. "The blanket statement that the public understood is that most of the oil has disappeared. That is not true. About 50% of it is still in the water," she said.

Like other scientists, she said the report failed to explain how it reached its estimates on the amount of oil that was biodegraded naturally, or dispersed with chemicals. "There are a lot of unanswered questions."

[jgraz]

9. Because the acolytes demand this statement on a thrice daily basis.

After a while, it starts to sound like a loyalty oath.

Almost all of us voted for and many of us worked for and donated to Obama. We ALL wanted him elected and most of us want him re-elected. But that's not enough for some people (many of whom did little to support his campaign). You have to repeat and repeat the apostle's creed like you're praying some sort of DLC rosary. Otherwise, you'll be branded a witch and cast out.

What they've done is turn a general statement of common ground into mindless sloganeering. It's sad, undemocratic and ultimately self-defeating. And I, for one, refuse to play along.

[Peacetrain]

13. Hmmm did I not see you in one of my threads posting something similar yesterday?

"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us. (O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.)"


By Robert Burns


Sweetheart you are becoming the one note wonder you accuse everyone else of being..

[jgraz]

19. Probably. I'm not sure how much repetition you require before a concept sinks in

Clearly, lambchop, it's at least one more than you've been exposed to so far.

(BTW, you should consider quoting other people's work more often. It almost makes your posts readable.)

[Webster Green]

14. It's absolutely a loyalty oath.

I'm wondering about the OP though. Was this oath actually posted on the DU as a challenge to see who would recite it? Is the assumption that many here are "afraid" to recite the oath based on the number of replies to the loyalty oath thread in which posters actually recited the oath?

Perhaps there are DUers who weren't even logged in at the time the loyalty oath thread was posted. That would skew the results.

Maybe this is the loyalty oath thread. In that case, the OP has presumed the results in advance.

I'm so confused. :crazy:

[jaxx]

10. Because you get answers like the ones posted here.

He is a good president, he does care and the nation is well represented by President Barack Obama.

Now there are two of us who aren't afraid to say it....you have started a movement. :thumbsup:

(ps...I think a couple others were saying it too!)

[bigwillq]

12. A lot of people say it

A lot don't.
That happens with every president.

[DailyGrind51]

15. because we were promised "Chcange we coudl believe in!", but the "change" came up a few cents short!

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

27. "Came up a few cents short" would never be uttered by a teabagger.

For a teabagger, that would be far too moderate a criticism of the president.

It's also against the DU rules to call someone a freeper or teabagger.

[DailyGrind51]

54. Thank you! The phrase obviously refers to change that was not Progressive enough.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. No fear here, just do not fully agree

The man stands up and announces that he opposes my basic rights as a human being. I'm not proud of that at all. I find it to be atavistic and hatefully bigoted. Just not my thing, discrimination and announcements that my group is better than others in the eyes of God. I find that to be cheap, affected, and cynical language.
But you dig it, so hey, it works for the politician that he is.

[ibegurpard]

17. Because the policy he is enacting leads me to belive that it's not true.

[DailyGrind51]

56. Way too many half-measures and compromises to be truly effective.

[impik]

20. I'm not afraid. He's a great president. People are going to realize it when he's gone in 2012

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Any politician who can not get re-elected is by definition not

great. You are very committed to the idea that Obama will not win in 2012, and that puzzles me. I think he's fairly mediocre, but I'm also sure he will win. In his shoes, I'd take my sort of criticism over your sort of support, personally.

[spartan61]

36. So are you saying that W was a great president?

Because the reverse of your comment is any politician who is re-elected must be great.

[jgraz]

41. Logic fail.

:eyes:

[jgraz]

42. You misunderstand

Impik is not committed to the idea that Obama will lose in 2012. He's committed to the idea of being able to pout, spin on his back and yell I TOLD YOU SO for four years.

[impik]

44. I don't think that he can't get re-elected, i think that he won't run again

And it won't be because of the Right Wingnuts, it'll be because of the Left. And then, when he's gone, the truth will hit the so-called "progressives".

[grahamhgreen]

24. "He actually cares" - so noncommital! About who? Big insurance? nt

[grantcart]

28. Because there is a great paradox in the two parties

Democrats who see the value of establishing more services based on the community is made up of a lot of intelligent strong willed individuals who prefer to be heard as individuals.

Republicans who see the value of maintaining an aggressive indivualism is made up of a lot of people who aren't very intelligent and prefer to move lock step in chanting the same superficial nonsense in unity.


Ironic, isn't it.

[bvar22]

29. Another Loyalty Oath?

I am more afraid of the Party Purity Commissars, and where they want to take the Democratic Party.

[Orsino]

32. Because his being a good president is no longer enough.

Now we absolutely need him to be a fucking magnificent president, willing and able to lead us where we really need to go. We can't afford mere caretakers in any elected or appointed office; our centuries of neglect have caught up to us, and time is too short for us to be satisfied--or even to appear to be so--with small gains.

I wish our myriad crises were not so severe, and that we could simply be happy with a generally beneficent leadership. I admire President Obama's pragmatism up to a point--and it's the point where failing to be part of a true solution exacerbates a problem.

[jgraz]

38. Totally agree

What's even more frustrating is that Obama clearly has the intelligence and talent to actually be a fucking magnificent president. For some reason he's choosing not to. :banghead:

[Orsino]

45. Well, the reasons are obvious.

He would never have been allowed to be president had he promised to do what's really needs to be done. Besides Big Money's veto, there's the will of the The People to consider, and voters don't tend to go for an agenda of peace, greening and Welfare. It doesn't sell.

To be our president at all, he had to become what we think we want. The timidity of his platform is mostly our fault.

[jgraz]

47. Not buying that for a second

If there's anything more un-Amercan than timidity, I haven't heard about it. The American people want strong leaders, and they'll support and respect those leaders even if they disagree with their politics.

Obama may have been forced to adopt his milquetoast agenda, but it wasn't by the voters. All we did was give him a huge mandate and overwhelming congressional majorities. He was the one who chose to squander that opportunity.

[Orsino]

48. American voters want the illusion of strength, mostly...

..hence the essential timidity of the Bush/Cheney agenda. Obama's was exactly as much tougher as he could get away with, which wasn't all that much.

He couldn't promise to end all the goddamned wars, but he could promise "change," and a drawing down of at least one war, years off.

He couldn't promise to restore Welfare--because Welfare = weakness in the minds of too many voters.

He couldn't promise to stop importing manly petroleum, and to switch us over to hippie-type wind and solar power.

No, the candidate who came closest to those promises was, perhaps, Dennis Kucinich--and even he didn't make those pledges, because he knew that American voters most fear appearing weak. Still the TV painted his portrait in pink and yellow, ending his candidacy.

Timidity is a given in US politics. Obama didn't invent it; his minor successes have come in spite of it.

[Kltpzyxm]

53. +1000

[depakid]

34. Mainly because the record doesn't show that in my opinion

When all is said and done, I suspect he'll end up ranking somewhere in the middle or even to the lower third.

[Bonobo]

35. Because he is not even true to his own beliefs.

Read his books.

Consider his background and experiences.

Then tell me if you think he is being consistent and true to the lessons that his life taught him.

He disappoints us because he is not living up to his own best ideals in any sense.

He disappoints us because in him, we see a mirror of our own failings, compromises and rationalizations in the name of expedience.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. Because I no longer believe he ACTUALLY cares.

[ZM90]

39. I agree.

K&R

[and-justice-for-all]

40. I'm not..nt

[readmoreoften]

43. I'm not "afraid" to say it. In fact I think it's a load of bullshit.

:shrug:

[LWolf]

49. Because a president that considers

privatization and union-busting education "reform," who prefers conservative republican "reforms" and "cares" more about the agendas of Bill Gates and Eli Broad than the needs of teachers and students, is not a good president.

Because a president that is willing to expand unnecessary wars in the middle east and keep the MIC funded at the expense of the rest of us is not a good president.

I could go on.

I am obviously not "afraid" to say anything, having said this in GDP. I expect the beatings to commence immediately.

I don't give a shit. I AM APPALLED, NOT PROUD. DEAL WITH IT.

[scheming daemons]

50. For those who understand the political climate in this country, it is not hard to say that at all

Only the malcontents who aren't happy unless the world is 100% to their liking are upset with him.


If a President does what you want more than half the time, then he's a good President.



Any liberal who can't honestly say that the President has been right more than half the time has not been paying attention.

[bluethruandthru]

51. I have slowly lost my faith in Obama.

I wanted to be a believer but time and time again this president has disappointed me. He talks a good game and makes wonderful speechs, but when it comes to actions, he falls far short of what I would consider a good Democratic leader.
I've begun to think that Obama thinks we're all as stupid as the tea-baggers because we believe everything we're told..even when it plainly isn't true. How else do we explain Obama's crowing about health care reform when it was clearly an insurance company giveaway with a few token scraps for the left? Or his talk of reforming education when what he's doing is tearing down unions and pushing for privatizing schools? Now he's going after social security and blaming it for our budget deficit instead of taking the axe to our military budget.

[Odin2005]

52. because that is not true. He is a corporatist owned by Goldman Sachs.

[DailyGrind51]

57. It is hard to argue against that point, considering the backgrounds of his financial people.

[mmonk]

55. .

[Phx_Dem]

59. He's a great President and I'm proud to say it!