Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What’s Changed in Washington?
Think things have changed in Washington? You might be surprised by a quick review of today's headlines.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate approved a $636 billion defense-spending bill, a few billion less than what the Obama administration actually requested and significantly more than the Bush administration's last appropriation's bill.
The LA Times reports that the administration probably won't meet its deadline to shut down Guantanamo. "It's going to be difficult,"the Attorney General told reporters at the Justice Department Tuesday. The administration's plans have apparenlty been complicated by a House vote to prohibit the transfer of terrorism suspects to US prisons.
On the subject of executive authority, the administration had little interest in Sen. Russ Feingold's hearing on so-called "czars." When it comes to executive branch appointees who do not require senate confirmation, Robert Gibbs said, "I would assume that Congress and Senator Feingold have more weighty topics to grapple with than something like this."
Finally, Politico reports that during the president's visit to the United Nations Senior Advisor David Axelrod met with Fox CEO Roger Ailes over coffee. Apparently they discussed news coverage and the "relationship between the two organizations." HUH?
Now, I'm no defender of Fox as anyone who watches this show knows. But why is the president's top advisor meeting with the network? And which organizations is he talking about? Maybe we need a czar to find out.
60 Comments so far
Show AllPoor Laura, nothing has changed in Washington campaign. Rewind to the election of Obama when she was advocating for him and the other Democratic pond scum. Crying wolf now only falls on deaf ears for the authentic left. What remains hilariously ironic is that poor Laura only has credibility with the inside the belt way elites which she belongs.
Piss off.
Keep an eye on her tone during election season next year and in 2012 when Obama's butt gets put on the line. Great observation.
I think your comment is in bad taste. Who did you vote for? Obviously, your above the american system of government. You have all the answers. Right? Many of us voted for the man that did not deliver. However, you might pay close attention to what this will mean for Obama or anyone who follows. This time Washington has crossed the line. This president has crossed the line. No more business as usual. People like a bit of hope. Obama had his shot; he has blown it. Many from my state will deal with this in our own way. No more slick willys? Hold your nose up into the wind. The smell is coming from washington and its clean house time.
She voted for Nader just like I did. Listen, Obama made himself clear all through the campaign trail but I understand that he was somehow able to hoodwink enough of the electorate with his pixy dust. Still, that does not give voters the excuse to not open their hearts and minds to the issues and give third parties a chance. "Hope" and "change" were powerful seducers. Will it work again in 2012? We'll see. I cannot believe 53% of those who voted fell for it.
When posters on this site "open their hearts" and truthfully admit that they voted for Obama, all they get in return is your scorn and ridicule. If you really want to recruit support for third parties then you're certainly going about it in a bizarre fashion.
Has it ever occurred to you that the pool of likely voters for those alternative choices must come primarily from disaffected Obama voters, the very people whom you gleefully insult every time the subject comes up?
q
Excuse me but since when did Obama make his stand on anything clear? All he did was play flip-flop issue after issue. Yes, I used to get mad at those who voted for Obama but I have forgiven some of them who are willing to at least understand and get to the heart of the issues and turn a new leaf, not the same old Obamabots who allow their main engines to be sludged. But neither do I blame those of us who proudly and/or angrily voted for Nader or Mckinney because we actually had the heart and courage to vote for substance rather than fluff and puff. You're probably jealous that you voted for hot air and since Obama burst that bubble and sludged you, you have nothing to be proud of. Well, I'm sorry but you need to start learning your lessons. Obama may have won but the people lost and Obama's worsening performance only confirms that. Is that what you are proud of? How is all that false hope and chump change making you feel?
Jennifer, Quick[obfuscation] does not answer questions, she only ASKS them. Just ignore her. Some people are destined to remain puppets their entire lives dancing off the strings some one else is pulling. She lives on this site 24/7 offering her insufferable whining, and parroting the expected script while feeding from the same polluted trough along with the rest of the sheep.
But your metaphor is pretty accurate. These types are all about "chump change."
Sometimes quickstepper can come around. I know some people out there won't change but since this is the internet, I can only be fair and assume that maybe some will change. I do take a user's posting record and keep that in mind but sometimes I feel that occasional moment to drop them a thinking challenge and test his or her improvement. Sometimes, they'll answer and possibly come around and sometimes they won't. I usually read the posts before taking note of the user who wrote this. I know I've changed in some ways such as not getting as emotional as I used to but I'm still with you on the truth. All I can say about quicky is leave him/her a rope and when he/she is ready to change for the better, quicky can climb up the rope and turn a new leaf. Until then, well...
I agree that harshly excoriating self-identified Obama voters has limited value beyond the momentary satisfaction of doing so.
For instance, Dave Lindorff, who is often published here, indeed drank the Obama Kool-Aid in 2008 and scorned those who rejected Obama, especially if the scorners advocated third-party candidates.
David Michael Green also pimped Obama and has since published his regrets for doing so.
Personally, I'm not sure that either man won't relapse into lesser-evil Democrat mode next time around. Still, Lindorff especially was refreshingly candid about succumbing to an overly favorable opinion of both Obama and his prospects for effecting POSITIVE change.
Still, unrelenting commenters can't see a Lindorff article without tearing him a new one. It seems unfortunate and gratuitous to do so, as you note. It gets old, and I came to sympathize with Lindorff for feeling compelled to defend his flawed choices over and over to vindictive commenters.
BUT-- and it's a big but-- those who didn't jump on the Obama bandwagon last year had to endure a shitstorm of rancorous abuse-- scorn and ridicule-- from the Obama-enchanted. Some people take longer than others to let go of vengeful bitterness, and can't resist taking shots at reformed Obama acolytes.
Furthermore, there is great irony, not to say hypocrisy, in the view that it's uncool, or "tasteless", to dump on Obama supporters who followed their own consciences and voted in good faith. When the discussion was raging during campaign season between the Obama-loving "realists" and the rest of us, the very rationale of voting one's conscience in good faith was itself denounced and excoriated as politically immature and self-indulgent.
It IS unfair that Obama voters who didn't bash the rest of us as described should come in for harsh criticism; there's arguably a form of "guilt by association" at work. Still, I'm not inclined to fault those who take a little longer to come to terms with their anger, and I hope expressing their honest, if unpleasant, feelings has a therapeutic effect.
And I have to wonder how serious you are in arguing that these blog comments attacks will only put off recovering Obamaholics and drive them further from the progressive ranks. If latte-liberal "pwogs" are so tenuous and fragile, I doubt they'd last very long outside the sheltering wings of the duopoly in any case.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Nicely stated. Take QuickStepper, nothing more than a right of center Obama clone who posts under numerious alter egos. She/he often carries on a conversation with herself under alternate sign on names thinking it enhances her position. The sad truth is that she has no life as evidenced by the fact that all her time is invested in posting on CD and defending Bush Light much like the career generated by poor little Laura.
I dont have time to hold your hand son. Go cry on Laura's shoulder.
Capitalist, lover of excessive wealth, you did nothing to stop the corruption when Bush was in power and nothing will you do now.
.."pond scum...crying wolf....deaf ears...inside the belt way(sic)elites...piss off..."
Your sentiment is as trite as your language.
Why not try something novel for a change: THINK FOR YOURSELF.
After all, what could be more trite than Obama and his corporate handlers?
Elohmmm sez: "After all, what could be more trite than Obama and his corporate handlers?"
Your posts.
Well, yes if that's true that Laura Flanders supported Obama in his campaign, I expect she should have known better.
At least she is not making excuses for him now, though, as so many others that refuse to face the reality that Obama is who he always was.
Obama's votes in Congress proved his allegiance to corporations and his campaign was largely financed by Wall Street.
Any person, much less a reporter, has access to this information.
I have to thank Laura for publishing this information on Obama's clear responsibility for perpetual war, torture and his alliance with the Republican party.
What’s Changed in Washington?
Nothing much.
Of course the two have much to discuss inasmuch as Fox would like to resume its role as the official network of the White House press secretary and Obama is anxious to offer their viewers anything at all if they will just ease up in their criticism. Unfortunately for Obama, to the teabaggers compromise smells like blood in the water, so at last American political discourse becomes the Jerry Springer Show and our lawmaking indistinguishable from the TV wrestling. Are you ready to gooovveerrrnn?!
"On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate approved a $636 billion defense-spending bill, a few billion less than what the Obama administration actually requested and significantly more than the Bush administration's last appropriation's bill. "
Go figure ! I'm not surprised so it's hard to be any more outraged about this. What would the numbers have been had Mccain been in office, closer to Dubya's? Daddy Bush looks "liberal" at this point. At this rate, it won't be long before Dubya joins his pappy !
Please repeat after me:
FALSE HOPE, CHUMP CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN !
Obama *did* say in the campaign that military spending should be increased. "False hope" is right. There was no basis for it.
The Republocrats haved been kicked out of power and replaced by the Dempublicans.
Sort of like quitting crack, and changing to freebase.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
>>On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate approved a $636 billion defense-spending bill, a few billion less than what the Obama administration actually requested and significantly more than the Bush administration's last appropriation's bill.
Its to Fight the nazis...wait no..its to fight them damn Commies...wait..its for Terrorism!! Wait ah its for the Islamofascist Terrorists! No its for the Islamofascist nazi Terrorist pedophiliac Commies! Those people are everywhere and the USA MUST defend the world from them! Would you 80,000 people in line waiting for a 200 dollar cheque to pay your rent PLEASE be patient, we only have 500 of these things to go around and we are praying to the Lord Jesus for a way to divide this amongst the multitude. We woulda passed out loaves and fish, but there aint no more fish.
God BLESS America!
Right Gw, all the loaves and fishes went to the "defense" industry, where they have been going since WWII, to fight any damn thing at all, as an excuse to keep grinding out the armaments, providing major US employment and handsome profits from foreign sales.
This allows the US to have practically all its civilized production done abroad, so the industrialists can profit obscenely on both fronts,
while putting its people on a fast track to the Middle Ages.
its apparent that the only change in washington has been to double down on the imperial wars - you know the ones by which we steal the oil and gas in the middle east and prevent the russians and chinese from obtaining access
or as cheney says: the oil is ours - it belongs to us - it is only a geographic error on god's part that he put it under the sands of iraq
at least we all know this much i hope: the clowns and shills in washington starting with bary obama and including every single senator and congressman/woman (with few and i mean few exceptions) are on the corporate payroll
and "lovin' it"
they get free trips, cash in brown bags (no need to bother uncle sam about that money), free hookers (both straight and gay - mainly for the republicans who's motto apprently is - the younger the better)), and finally they get to double dip and cash in with influence pedaling the second they are out of office
its cynical but i think realistic to say - and i say it bitterly - that they don't give the proverbial flying fuck about anyone other than themselves
baucus' healthcare bill - if that's what you want to call it - was written by the industry - enough said about that
obama doesn't even have a plan to offer - the slimy bastard
one thing about barry obama - he is really getting on my last nerve - he seems about as ineffectual a president as we have ever had and he is well on his way to becoming the worst president we have ever had - move over bushbaby - your reign as belly flop number one was way too short but appears to be over
the country is broke - we are verging on hyperinflation and playing with failed state status but the wars must go on and on and on
8 years and counting to defeat 100 irregulars running around afghanistan in pick up trucks at a cost of 12 billion/month
the military budget - bigger than any bush ever asked for - and during a time of peace - doesn't even include any of the black budgets, any of the nuclear budgets and is also subject to further funding bills as they are needed
this can't be the best way to steal the oil and gas...
I still think Obama is/was better than the other idiot who had a chance of winning the presidency; that doesn't say much really.
Again, as in the past, what's really needed is electoral reform or a third party that has a chance of being elected. The dems and pukes are indeed two sides of the same coin, and there's not much difference between the sides.
At the very least you should stop electing millionaires and expect them to give a damn about the common man.
That is like sayiny AIDS is better then cancer...
Well, most people who get HIV did have some fun in order to get it... (sorry, that's in really really really bad taste. I think a few of my ex's who've passed due to that disease will be right pissed at me for saying such a thing...)
If/when the choice is between bad and worse, why can't we have the option of neither? In some ways I feel sorry for the guy who came after bush the lesser, the magnitude of the shit sandwich left by the last idiot is indigestible. I don't think Nader or any of the other minor party options would have been able to do better (again that's not saying much at all...), and some could have done worse.
If the usa was a ship, that ship would be stuck on some nasty rocks with the tide going out, and a severe storm brewing up. Probably out of fuel as well...
Yes, Saturnalia, I agree we need to stop electing millionares.
Dennis Kucinich is a common man and not a millionare. He lives in the same house he bought 30 years ago. He consistently stands up for the people through his votes in congress unlike Obama as Senator.
I just don't understand why a person who has proven his allegiance to the people and will deliver, cannot get the support of the people.
Dennis had Viggo Mortensen and Sean Penn campaign with him. If these tough guys see the value, why can't we?
Are we that shallow?
Sue, I like Kucinich too. He isn't perfect but he is better than the rest. But to answer you question, yes, we are that shallow. We don't elect anybody, the talking heads do it for us...
Arktig,
Right. Dennis is not perfect as no one is. But he has struggled in life and persevered and has always valued people. It shows in his votes in Congress and how he lives his life, not just in his words.
If we support him, I can see him bringing Cynthia, Ralph and the few good ones out there with him. And they'll get it done. Bush did it with executive orders, any President can end NAFTA, WTO, provide Single-payer health care, end the programs for the rich and end the war. He has what it takes to get the job done. Sue
Hello sue.
Yes, I agree with you on Dennis K. He has stood up for alot of good things that would bring change to the majority of people in the US and in turn the majority of people in the World. He is the ONLY democrat I would ever ever vote for (and thats not just because I'm a big Lord of the Rings fan and think he must be cool if Viggo is at his news conferences ;-)
That being said, he cannot get the support of the people unless we demand it. The democrats, yes his own party, as well as the republicans (don't want to let someone on national tv who might appeal to say an unemployed poor person who only votes republican out of ignorance) excluded him from being able to debate on any of the televised forums. Why. they both work for the same boss. that boss needs to be dragged out of the office and someone new put in there. but until we the people through peaceful means demand that everyone has the right to debate, great people like dennis and ralph and cynthia m. will never be able to participate. simply because the government knows that if you hide the better alternative from the people, and place the same person in front of the voting public, and make them feel like they have a choice, they will always win.
Its interesting. I believe a lot of the people posting on commondreams.org voted for obama. They'll say they didn't but believe back when it was campaign time, if you posted anything pro nader or pro dennis, and questioned obama, people came after you with vigor. those same people are now posting negative obama posts. interesting what a hold the media has on people, proving my point about why they don't want a serious alternative to have a national audience on tv/internet.
also, and if one does care to see how those candidates who weren't allowed to participate, would have responded to the exact same questions, go to democracynow.org and see the interviews that amy g. did the mornings after the debates where she asked the same questions that obama and mccain were asked.
peace, participate and volunteer for the better of all society.
Hello getoffyourbut,
Dennis is my choice for the person he is. Unfortunately the "democrat" party, and I say that intentionally because they are NOT democratic, seems to have morphed into the right or maybe I just realized it lately.
Nader worries me because I believe he did accept contributions from the Republican party in the last election to keep running, if I am correct, although I did vote for him since Dennis was not on the ballot.
I remember emailing the network when Dennis was shut out of the last debates. I guess most people don't know how, exactly, to demand things or to whom.
I just keep putting Dennis' name out there and hope it will stick. I do like Cynthia McKinney as well. Dennis is more seasoned, perhaps, and popular, and has a fairly large following. Viggo and Sean? Need I say more?
Thanks for the comment.
Sue
i voted for O'bama and glad I did. He was far better than Mc'Cain. obama is at least enunciating some of the words I want. He actually said the words Green Jobs. He even said, National Health Care. He also said, Close Guantanomo and also from his lips he said Global Warming is serious business. He said also that Health Insurance companies needed to be reined in. He even said the words 'vested interests' He also is loved by millions who have been disenfranchised for too long. I know some folks of color who are feeling a lot better with an African american at the helm. That makes me feel good. Ok thats what I feel I'm being honest. I feel good when I see a black man behind the presidential seal. I know it infuriates people like Rush. I like Rush infuriated. Maybe he'll drop dead sooner. I would rather have my mainest man Kucinich but he was blacklisted by big brother TV and the Democrats. Kucinich is too much of a threat to the elite. O'bama is not a threat to the elite but he's better than McCain and that fascist Palin. a lot better. why? umm lets see-Mccain aint bright and he's a square, he's also not level headed. Palin is a fundamentalist and she definately has some loose screws. Imagine every day wondering if McCain drops dead we've got the loose screw with the finger on the button. So yeah I voted for the lesser of two evils.i've got a kid yknow
hey rico.
I can see where your coming from.
i think a lot of people feel the way you.
however, what if you take your argument and say come 2016, the republicans run a candidate that is black, can pronounce more words and syllables than "W" (which wouldn't be hard to find) and mentions closing Guantanamo (which Obama isn't doing) and Green Jobs (which he isn't doing" and not attending the International Conference on Racism (which he didn't attend) and have his cronies strong arm their puppet Abbas to shamefully do nothing about the Goldstone report on the bombardment of Gaza (which he did). and the democrats counter with say a "clinton" who will you vote for? after all the head of the republican comittee, Michael Steele, is a black man. and they'd most likely come up with a catchy word (or two) such as "hope" and "change" to pull at peoples emotions. and I've got two kids as well, and so do most people living on this earth. check out the website rethinking afghanistan http://rethinkafghanistan.com/ and watch trailer no. 4 to see how the children/parents of afghanistan are feeling about the United States right now.
peace Rico.
Ok Rico, I see you're new here so take the time to learn what's really happening and I'll bet 90% that you'll take back that naive assessment of Obama.
Nader worries me because I believe he did accept contributions from the Republican party in the last election to keep running...
_____________________________________________
This isn't a big deal in the scheme of things, but I don't find it at all reprehensible that Nader accepted "Republican" money.
You're raising the issue as a legitimate concern for you, which I respect. But you may not have been visiting this site and other sites during the heyday of the anti-Naderites. As part of their hysterical condemnation of all things Nader, they fervently invoked this supposedly hypocritical and treacherous act as proof positive that Nader is either a crypto-bankster sell-out or a closet Republican.
Nader's new book predictably revived this Limbaughesque smear. There are still a few vitriolic "Nader-haters" popping up here now and then.
Consider this: Nader, like ANY candidate in Amerika, requires megabucks to run for office. Since he's not about to be funded by the usual corporations and banksters, he cheerfully declared that he'd take any contributions from anywhere.
I can't say Nader used the term "beggars can't be choosers", but that's pretty much where any outsider candidate is. Furthermore, Nader openly affirmed the expected truth that he's not about to be beholden to a party just because they contribute to his campaign.
You may find that claim suspect, but that's not the issue. The issue is that Nader made it clear that if Republicans wanted to fund a candidate who would become their nemesis if he were elected, so much the better!
Furthermore, the Democrats-- ESPECIALLY the would-be progressive and latte-liberal Dems-- furiously and self-righteously implemented every dirty trick and obstacle they could think of to impede Nader's campaign and exclude Nader from a place on the national stage. The anti-Nader Dems unabashedly sought to terminate Nader's candidacy with extreme prejudice.
Given all of this, it's not at all clear what "principle" Nader would serve if he refused and rejected financial support to continue a campaign dogged by the slings and arrows of Democratic hostility.
You may want to examine your position, or at least your worry, in the light of these points.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I dont understand why Kucinich doesnt drop the dems and become an independent. He wants the party to return to its roots, but its obvious that aint happenin !
What’s Changed in Washington? This could be a very short article.
The only thing that changed in Washington D.C. is the MIC replaced a Repug with a Demorat!
Obama is prowar ( 3 wars going on right now! )
Obama is prodeath ( How many innocent folks are being killed under this current president? As he goes on tv smiling.)
Who is sicker a smiling president who is responsible for the death of kids or americans smiling while kids are being killed?
I say both are sick!
Nothing changes except the window dressing and more sophisticated rhetoric and PR stunts.
What does one expect from a de-facto one-party state that pretends and charades that it is a "democratic" country?
The oligarchy rules, no matter if a D or R controls the legislature and executive branch. The Supremes are un-accountable, as well as the Federal Reserve.
I forget - who's the czar in charge of catching banksters? And the Peace Czar - that's who again? The Jobs Czar - that's, um, what's his name, right?
Is there, like, an annual American Czar retreat, where they discuss the good life of a czar and other czar stuff?
Why hasn't Hollywood made "American Czar, The Movie" yet? Or "CSI: CZAR"?
Do czars drive Z-cars?
If an American Czar is at a party, and he meets a nice woman, does he admit he's a czar, or is he just too embarrassed to actually use the stupid f@#king title?
"who's the czar in charge of catching banksters?" good question. Here is what I know about the financial "reform" which is moving quietly in the shadow of healthcare "reform". None of the financial bills supports anything like Glass-Steagall, and that would be the bare minimum for any regulation. There is no tax on derivatives either. The proposed bills follow the now traditional path of creating new agencies or branches... but we had them before and they slept during the making of current crisis. Congress have given away their legislative powers, instead of passing clear regulations, they sell regulative powers to private institutions (the Fed) and the executive branch (a billion agencies). These institutions are allowed to regulate as they see fit, it's against the spirit of the Constitution as it mixes legislative and executive powers, but this is how it is.
Perhaps the real question that we should be asking is this:
Why do some progressives continue to believe that things in Washington will change if they continue to put their faith in the Democratic Party?
For more independent views you can visit:
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com
http://chriscommons.blogspot.com
dumddown old fart
Assuming 40 million voted Dem last November, If each of the 40 mil donated a mere $15 we could possibly purchase the 60 senators required to pass single payer health care, providing them with a golden parachute for life after politics. Some Baksheesh for brother OB to prevent a veto and voila! problem solved.
I doubt that would work, but I'd love to try it. I just want to see 40 million people do something remotely rational... together...
"What’s Changed in Washington?" I didn't expect anything to change and I still don't. Because the real question is What's Changed in Ourslves? Sadly, people are so shortsighted that it would have to get a lot worse before the answer moves away from the absolute zero... It might be well too late by then...
Deepa
"What's changed in Washington?"
"Serena Williams in trouble for posing nude"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
Serena-Williams-in-trouble-for-posing-nude/videoshow/5102138.cms
I dunno but I feel like a dumb butt for voting Obama but I shall correct that ! Maybe then Washington will change?
And unfortunately for US all, with president lipstick-up artist (at the Casa Blanca buck stop) and spokesman Glibs, their miserepublican mirrorspeak's become chronic and institutionalized.