I believe the Republican 'Morning After' Talking Points are in:
This morning on CNN an interview re OWS Oakland and the police actions concludes with the thought:
STAY AWAY FROM OWS BECAUSE OF THE PROSPECT OF VIOLENCE THAT MAY ERUPT.
To read my quick transcript of the interview, please continue...
Interview leads off with scenes of Oakland and the violent police crackdown, w/voiceover:
"where police fire tear gas on protestors, dozens arrested, we have seen their commitment but what do they really want- #1?....
TJ: (CNN announcer) "We are hearing a lot of sound and fury from the OWS protestors but other people may be asking what do they really want? ......
What does it mean for the next election. Let me bring in CNN contributor, political columnist for Newsweek and the Daily Beast, Jon Avlon, Senior Political Columnist, Newsweek...
some of these images we have been showing from Oakland, is this the danger for some of these politicians, they are not sure what to think of these protestors and this movement and they're holding off on aligning themselves with something that can look like this ....no matter whose side may be at fault for triggering this- #2 )(scenes of police firing tear gas and protestors screaming,) ...
JA: That's right TJ, we got the president of the WTO protests in the 90's and that's why some politicians are wisely saying 'hold on, let's get a clearer sense of what the protest wants to accomplish'. I read a Steve Jobs quote this morning in the new bio, which said that the dividing line in the new politics is not liberal and conservative but 'constructive v. destructive.' And I think that the OWS protestors will have to decide whether they want to be a constructive force in solving the problems they're protesting or whether they are going to go down as a destructive force in American politics. -#3 (scene of billowing clouds of tear gas in the background,) Its an important choice to make. Whether you choose to protest or political engagement.
TJ: What do they do? we are in month two ... how are they doing in finding that message and maybe a leadership structure?
JA: They have succeeded in capturing attention, that is an important part of the process. But they need to focus on what goals they want to accomplish/agenda,.. what sort of change they want to see forward. -#4 The question is whether their goal is to change the financial system, which certainly there is room for change...or whether their goal is simply to protest the American Society at large, that is a lot more amorphous, gonna have a lot harder time attracting more people than you alienate if you take that late 60's model and extend it forward. #5
TJ: I had someone say to me that the protests, you don't have to offer solutions or fix the problem you just have to highlight it. Is that enough? Have they done their job in highlighting the problem?
JA: They have done 'a Job' in terms of bringing more attention to the problem. But look it is easy to criticize. But as the Tea Party has found it may be easy to rally people in opposition to something but it is a lot more difficult to take responsibility for solving the problem. And in a democracy that is a shared responsibility and that's a key test for a any political movement, can they make the transition from 'opposition' to 'proposition'.
TJ: Well, what would you recommend, if you were a consultant for the Occupy Movement that the Tea Party was able to do, because the Tea Party was able to do bec. the TP got political clout, they were able to get people elected and get people kicked out of office in some cases.-#6
JA: (sneers and laughs) I don't think OWS is engaging consultants but I do think that for the Democratic Party in particular they have a real question. A lot of folks like to see populist movements create an air of urgency behind their political wing. But there does come a question of what alienates more than it attracts.-#7 If they focus on specific reforms that can deal with some of the wealth disparity, financial reforms, that assignment some of the people in Congress can get behind, President today proposing new legislation to help college loans.....
...BUT FOLKS WOULD BE ADVISED NOT TO GET TOO TERRIBLY CLOSE AS LONG AS IT IS THIS IS GOING TO GENERATE THE KIND OF VIOLENCE WE SAW THE OTHER NIGHT.- #8
_____ End of Interview
Earlier today, I posted a diary, wondering what the purpose of the police crackdowns on the OWS movement http://www.dailykos.com/... I suggest that we need to ask if there is any consistent pattern here. I also ask 'what purpose' will the police crackdown serve, other than the law and order immediate excuse given. I wonder if the police crackdowns are 'set up' to provide the news media an opportunity to discredit OWS?
So, this interview given this morning strikes me as the Republican Talking Points from the crackdown in Oakland, with the bottom line an effort to discourage the public from participating and supporting OWS because it is violent and these people don't really know what they want.
I suggest that this interview contains 8 R Talking Points that we may now hear re. OWS, thanks to our Luntzian friends.
#1 (what do they really want- ) "They don't know what they want!" The continuing effort to dismiss OWS movement.
#2 (is this the danger for some of these politicians, they are not sure what to think of these protestors and this movement and they're holding off on aligning themselves with something that can look like this ....no matter whose side may be at fault for triggering this) Beware politicians from supporting this movement, you will get tainted by the violence.
#3 (And I think that the OWS protestors will have to decide whether they want to be a constructive force in solving the problems they're protesting or whether they are going to go down as a destructive force in American politics. ) This protesting is destructive, because see all the billows of smoke and screams?
#4 (they need to focus on what goals they want to accomplish/agenda,.. what sort of change they want to see forward.) They need to work WITHIN the system, not outside it.
#5 (their goal is simply to protest the American Society at large, that is a lot more amorphous, gonna have a lot harder time attracting more people than you alienate if you take that late 60's model and extend it forward.) Ah, now we are getting into 'swiftboat' territory. Setting up a political meme that OWS is against YOU, the American Society. The ultimate OTHER. They are not good patriotic Americans. Watch out for this one!
#6 ( if you were a consultant for the Occupy Movement that the Tea Party was able to do, because the Tea Party was able to do bec. the TP got political clout, they were able to get people elected and get people kicked out of office in some cases.) They will push the ultimate in FALSE EQUIVALENCY, The Tea Party was better, etc. This is an attempt to say that the TP was legitimate and OWS is not.
#7 (But there does come a question of what alienates more than it attracts.) An appeal to emotion: all these "violent" things are not 'attractive' but more alienating... Yuchy...euww... a blantant appeal to voter's emotions. (I love ya, Luntz.)
#8 (BUT FOLKS WOULD BE ADVISED NOT TO GET TOO TERRIBLY CLOSE AS LONG AS IT IS THIS IS GOING TO GENERATE THE KIND OF VIOLENCE WE SAW THE OTHER NIGHT.) OK, now that we have driven a wedge between you and any sympathy for OWS with our talking points, #1-7, there is no reason to have anything to do with these people and it might be dangerous because of the violence. "These are not the droids you are looking for, Move along."
So there you have it. I believe that the Republican Talking Points about the violence from Oakland, which is intended to discredit the OWS movement in general hit the street, the morning after.
The question must be asked about what is behind these violent crackdowns. Is it possible they are being orchestrated for the videos of violence that can then be twisted in the plutocratic media against OWS? They certainly are coming in useful as a super PR tactic. I search for facts and information, not conspiracy theories.
STAY AWAY FROM OWS BECAUSE OF THE PROSPECT OF VIOLENCE THAT MAY ERUPT. The meta message: This movement isn't specific and not stable: STAY AWAY.
HMMM? Who would benefit from the public believing this message?
10:17 AM PT: h/t Lauren Monica:
"John Avlon was a Rudy Guiliani's staffer" (He was the pundit doing the interview.)