Skip to main content

Author Barbara Ehrenreich Disgusted That Obama, Democrats Didn't Stop Raid

Author Barbara Ehrenreich ("Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America") accused President Barack Obama and the Democratic establishment of betraying the Occupy movement on Tuesday by failing to stop the evictions from Zuccotti Park, The Guardian reported.

    "One of the appalling things here is that there are so many Democratic mayors involved in these crackdowns or in Bloomberg's case, someone who is seen as a liberal," Ehrenreich said in a telephone interview. "And where in all this was Obama? Why couldn't he have picked up the phone at some point a couple of weeks ago and called the mayors of Portland and Oakland and said: 'go easy on these people. They represent the anger and aspirations of the majority'. Would that have been so difficult?"
    She said Obama had been practically silent since the protesters first descended on New York two months ago. "There have been a few little muffled comments but he has practically disappeared."


Read entire interview.http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

I wrote an appeal, in a diary on November 2nd, to The President, citing other President's actions, other circumstances, and got very little understanding or support here on DKos. I re-issue this demand of Our President Now.

When it comes time to stop merely saying something must be done, when the drive to redress and correct can be no longer ignored, people must stand up. We are standing now. With no demands, we stand only as witnesses to the crime. Merely inconveniently reminding people day in, and day out, by just standing up. The control of our democracy and our economy has been taken from our hands. It is not acceptable, and so we stand.

When Martin marched, when Lewis marched, when Freedom Riders were brutalized, when children attempting to attend school were attacked, Presidents before you acted. When armed forces attempted to crush unionization in Flint, President Roosevelt acted to protect.

Now you must act. I humbly demand, America's history demands, the spirit of a free people demands that you protect the rights of speech, assembly and redress.


http://www.dailykos.com/...

My demand is no longer humble, it is outraged. Act, act now. Speak! Call, discuss, convene.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh but this is just local trouble... (6+ / 0-)

    No need for the president to comment on every little thing that happens in this country.  It's none of his business...

    I mean, next you'll be demanding that the president comment on Mr. Fluffykins who was removed from his occupation of Irma Johnson's tree...

    /snark writ large.

    One of these days, I'm gonna learn that I'm only really good at convincing people when I'm being a wiseass. Reviewtopia.net

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:10:15 AM PST

  •  Be prepared (11+ / 0-)

    I already was hammered by the Opologists for suggesting Obama should have spoken out against the assault on peaceful demonstrators expressing their Constitutional rights.

    Battleground Wisconsin: Fascism has come to America

    by jhecht on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:12:27 AM PST

    •  Maybe when you stop using everything (14+ / 0-)

      as an excuse to whine about him, you'll stop getting feedback.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:21:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I support the election of our nominee, (15+ / 0-)

        and will do whatever is morally and legally acceptable to insure no republican holds office anywhere, but I reserve the right to challenge and demand moral and ethical accountability of whomever I support.

        •  Are you familiar with the principles of (11+ / 0-)

          federalism?

          Local police actions are not the business of the President of the United States.

          OWS is not the center of his universe.

          If OWS is going to present itself as a people-powered movement independent of party or polticians, they need to stop whining when politicians don't hold their hands and kiss their owies and make everything better and rescue them.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:27:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you ignoring every example I laid out? (7+ / 0-)

            Do you ignore the use of federal troops to put one child in a school?

            The President, who is the executive branch of our government, not only has the right, but the legal responsibility to protect the rights enshrined in our constitution.

            There are three branches of government, the legislative, which makes laws, the judicial which arbitrates laws, and the executive which executes the laws and ensures their compliance.

            Of course he has the power, he has the obligation to act to protect the people and ensure their rights.

            •  You realize that the use of federal (15+ / 0-)

              troops was enforcing the order of a federal court, right?

              When the Supreme Court orders Zuccotti park opened up to camping, then the analogy will hold.

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:42:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "NYPD defy supreme court over clearance of Occupy" (4+ / 0-)

                http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

                When the protesters reached the site, they were met by a ring of police that refused to let them through. Bloomberg said the city would not open the park until the legal case had been resolved. This drew a furious response from the activists and their lawyers, who accused the NYPD of causing violence by deliberately disobeying a court order.

                By lunchtime, the fight moved to the supreme court a few blocks from the park. There, lawyers for the movement argued the protesters' constitutional rights had been breached by the city's action, and the refusal of the NYPD to allow them to return to the park. The judge, Michael Stallman, was due to rule by 3pm local time.

                "This is a criticial first amendment issue," said Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights. "Occupying the centre of Wall Street as in protest against the damage that these protesters believe those who work there have done to this country could not be a clearer example of expressive protest."



                And the court did rule on the federal rights enshrined in our Constitution, for the occupation, for the tents, for free speech.

                BTW I HIGHLY recommend reading the Guardian on Occupy, our press universally sucks.
                http:/ www.guardian.co.uk world/ occupy-wall-street
                http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

              •  you do realize that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Josiah Bartlett

                the Constitution is not merely a set of guidelines, right?

                it is federal law.

                blink-- pale cold

                by zedaker on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:27:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, and federal law precludes the President (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Larsstephens

                  from invading cities with federal troops.

                  The President is not a court.

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:34:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i think the posse commitatus laws (0+ / 0-)

                    are not what you think they are.

                    The Posse Comitatus Act is an often misunderstood and misquoted United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.
                    The statute only directly addresses the US Army (and is understood to equally apply to the US Air Force as a derivative of the US Army); it does not reference, and thus does not implicitly apply to nor restrict units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, not by the Act itself.[1][2] The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    emphasis added

                    blink-- pale cold

                    by zedaker on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:01:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're seriously arguing (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Larsstephens

                      that Obama should have nationalized the New York national guard and deployed them to Zuccotti Square?

                      You're not saying that as a joke--you really honestly believe that?

                      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                      by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:03:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  i think that (0+ / 0-)

                        if he had or does put the guard between the police and the protesters that the ability of the police to initiate violence against peaceful protesters would be severely impeded in the same way that doing so let children attend school in the south.

                        IIRC those protesters being protected were breaking local ordinances, also.

                        blink-- pale cold

                        by zedaker on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:12:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  p.s. (0+ / 0-)

                          and maybe the Alabama National Guard would be a better choice, but maybe not.

                          blink-- pale cold

                          by zedaker on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:14:29 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  There was a Supreme Court order (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AaronInSanDiego

                          integrating the schools in the South.

                          Aside from the icky comparisons of OWS to the Civil Rights Movement, that's kind of a distinguishing feature.

                          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                          by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:16:26 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  icky? (0+ / 0-)

                            icky?

                            really?

                            perhaps you should find a local meeting of Authoritarians Anonymous and get back on your program. and you were doing so well.

                            blink-- pale cold

                            by zedaker on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:37:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, the point is that a group of people who've (3+ / 0-)

                            been hanging out in public parks and beating on drums for two whole months really have not earned the right to compare themselves to John Lewis and Martin Luther King Jr.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:45:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ah i think i see your problem. (0+ / 0-)

                            one does not EARN rights! one earns privileges. haven't you learned the difference yet?

                            tell that to those hospitalized. tell them they haven't EARNED anything.

                            tell them that their suffering and sacrifice is insufficient for you to say more than... meh!, because they have only

                            ...been hanging out in public parks and beating on drums for two whole months ...

                            do you require that people be lynched and beaten before you will recognize that both movements share and erupt from a common egalitarian seed?

                            you transpose the relationship  that King and Lewis had with the civil rights movement. the movement did not belong to them. rather, they belonged to the movement.

                            do you think that individuals with the stature of King and Lewis will not or cannot arise from the Occupy movement? do you think that King's and Lewis's statures were spontaneously generated overnight?

                            seriously?

                            or do you just think that racial equality and economic equality don't carry the same moral weight... that it's not okay to discriminate and repress people because of skin color, but it okay to do so because of wallet size?
                             

                            blink-- pale cold

                            by zedaker on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:34:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  You're right, it is federal law. (0+ / 0-)

                  The Constitution, as federal law, makes it perfectly clear who's empowered to determine what local, state, and lower federal laws are in violation of its statutes: the judicial system.

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:37:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  so, (0+ / 0-)

                    you think that that if the federal executive decided that s/he needed to intervene to prevent the fracturing of a federal law (one that purportedly is among the first and foremost laws) that he would be wrong legally or morally?

                    so you think the Emancipation Proclamation and it's subsequent actions were wrong, do you?

                    or guarding children going to school in the south with federalized troops?

                    that's good to know.

                    blink-- pale cold

                    by zedaker on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:49:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think that you would have serious issues... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...if President Gingrich decided that state laws preventing abortion-clinic protesters from blocking the doors to abortion clinics or standing in the way of patients were a violation of the protesters' First Amendment rights, and sent federal forces in to protect the protesters from local law enforcement officials.

                      The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to Confederate states as they were retaken by the US military—not to slaves in the Union states that allowed slavery. That's why it was legal.

                      And guarding children going to school in the South was in support of a federal court order, which is why it was legal.

                      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                      by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:04:24 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  so, (0+ / 0-)

                        you're saying that only deployments of federalized guard troops in support of court orders is sufficient grounds to deploy those troops? and you're also saying that a President Gingrich deploying troops for the reasons you state is the same thing? even when those laws are in support (if not the direct result) of federal court rulings, which i believe they are?

                        your arguments drown in contradiction.

                        blink-- pale cold

                        by zedaker on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:33:39 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, I'm saying that the President... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...doesn't get to unilaterally interpret the Constitution in such a way that state or local laws are overturned.

                          That is the prerogative of the Courts (who can decide that a given law is incompatible with a higher law) or Congress (who can make a higher law, consistent with their constitutional powers).

                          The President can only act if he has a federal court order or a federal law that empowers the federal government to act on his side. In this case, he has neither.

                          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                          by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:02:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  are you saying that (0+ / 0-)

                            the President is not empowered by the Constitution to enforce Constitutional law?

                            because it sure sounds like you are saying exactly that.

                            blink-- pale cold

                            by zedaker on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 01:38:50 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, yes. I am saying that. (0+ / 0-)

                            Take note of the part appended to many of the other amendments of the Constitution, like the 14th:

                            Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

                            What is the First Amendment? A statement of what Congress (and, by extension from the 14th with incorporation, states and cities) can't do.

                            The President is not empowered by the Constitution to determine if a law is in violation of the Constitution; rather, that is the purview of the Courts. The President's job is to execute the will of the courts or federal laws made by Congress, in line with the interpretation of the Courts.

                            The President is not empowered to determine that a local law or ordinance is in violation of the Constitution, and thus unilaterally interdict it with federal forces.

                            The President is empowered to enforce what the federal Courts determine to be constitutional law, if they determine a given state or local government action to be in violation of the Constitution and that state or locality indicates its intention to go forward regardless.

                            No such federal court finding exists in the case of Occupy Wall Street.

                            Separation of powers is a bedrock principle of our system of government. It's not worth throwing away for the sake of protesters camping in a park in New York.

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 09:35:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and how is it (0+ / 0-)

                            that Congress acts to enforce federal laws if not by empowering the Executive to administer and enforce those laws? Congress has only the Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms as it's direct enforcement vehicles, IIRC. the rest of enforcement is Constitutionally given to the Executive by "appropriate legislation", is it not?

                            i think the President does have the authority. you don't.

                            so i say, let him act and let the courts sort it out later. There are conflicting precedents, i'm sure. that makes it a case for the courts.

                            blink-- pale cold

                            by zedaker on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 11:26:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So is this a violation of federal law? (0+ / 0-)

                            If your answer is "yes," then please find me the specific statute in the US Code, in which it is explicitly stated that the Executive Branch has enforcement power, that President Obama would be enforcing by using federal forces to intervene against the NYPD in New York City.

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 11:57:14 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you show me one that says he does not. (0+ / 0-)

                            the Constitution specifically states that it is THE supreme law of this land. trying to argue that the President (office) does not have the Authority to enforce that law if he perceives it to be broken is ridiculous on it's face and has been since Jackson famously said

                            John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!

                            Enforcement of law by the Executive is presumptive and implicit within our system. that presumption can, admittedly, be overcome, but that process doesn't usually kick in until after the President acts unless there is specific legislation or dicta to prevent it.

                            arguing whether the President should act in that manner is fundamentally different than arguing that he cannot act because he has no authority.

                            blink-- pale cold

                            by zedaker on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 01:09:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The Constitution also VERY CLEARLY lays out... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...whose prerogative is the interpretation of the law.

                            It is not the Executive Branch's prerogative.

                            The Executive Branch quite simply does not have the enumerated power to interpret the First Amendment and enforce that interpretation.

                            If you would like to continue to disagree with me, then answer this challenge: Find me just one instance in the history of this nation when the President used federal forces to stop the agents of a state or local government from enforcing a state or local law, based solely on his own interpretation of the Constitution and not in defense of a specific federal law or federal court ruling. Find me one instance of that occurring, and then we'll talk.

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 01:14:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it lays out the FINAL (0+ / 0-)

                            arbiter. not the initial interpreter.

                            you still don't get it.

                            In Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary may not restrain the President in the execution of laws. In the case, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a request for an injunction preventing President Andrew Johnson from executing the Reconstruction Acts, which were claimed to be unconstitutional. The Court found that "[t]he Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance."[11] Thus, the courts cannot bar the passage of a law by Congress, though it may strike down such a law as unconstitutional. A similar construction applies to the executive branch.

                            if the 1st amendment is part of the supreme law of the land then the President MAY act to enforce it if he alone perceives the need to do so. he has the authority. that doesn't mean that his action may not be challenged in the courts, though i highly doubt that a challenge based solely on his authority would succeed.

                            and, if he deployed Guard troops with strict orders not to prevent arrests, but to prevent police violence being perpetrated on peaceful protesters amounting to civil rights violations  in the interest of preventing civil unrest, then i doubt any judge would rule against him. localities have the authority to enforce their laws unless they conflict with federal law and then the federal Executive has the authority to enforce those laws... including civil rights laws.

                            and no Court or Legislature can tell him NOT to do so before the issue is properly before them. which cannot happen  unless he first acts. a court may strike down a law or a legislature repeal a law ahead of enforcement action and render the question moot, BUT they may not tell the Executive not to enforce a law. and there are laws that pertain, such as those concerning excessive force.

                            as i said, whether he should or should not act in such a fashion is a valid argument.

                            claiming that he has no authority to act is just ridiculous.

                            unless you can point to a specific law or dicta saying that the President is barred from interfering in local law enforcement pursuant to federal law enforcement then you simply have no argument.

                            he has the authority, whether he chooses to exercise it or not is his call, not the Court's or Congress'. that's settled law.

                            btw, Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 4 states

                            The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

                            that is the Executive's primary grant of enforcement authority.

                            all quotes

                            blink-- pale cold

                            by zedaker on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:04:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not seeing the historical example... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...that I asked for there, of the President unilaterally imposing his interpretation of a Constitutional amendment that has no provisions for executive enforcement on a state or locality whose law he saw as unconstitutional.

                            Did you manage to find one?

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:10:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  wow! (0+ / 0-)

                            are you really taking the stance that because a President has not done something in the past that he has no authority to do something new now?

                            that's just sad, man.

                            blink-- pale cold

                            by zedaker on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:32:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  You are right (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tardis10, GAladybug, zedaker

            It is unconstitutional for him to speak out on injustices he sees. As the right wingers are so quick to point out, if it's not in the Constitution, it's not Constitutional. OWS is not in the Constitution, so the President may not support them.

            But then why do you whine so much?

            •  He's got better things to do (4+ / 0-)

              then complain about a distasteful but legal action by city police.

              Also, OWS is not an Obama movement.  Not sure why he should be expected to jump through hoops like a trained animal on its behalf.

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:44:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is neither distastful nor legal (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                willie2011, GAladybug, zedaker

                It is Hideous and Nauseating to use police forces to stop political speech.AND  It is the opposite of legal.

                •  It's not the opposite of legal at all. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Adam B, Geekesque, virginislandsguy

                  The courts, who are empowered by our Constitution to determine whether federal, state, or local laws are in violation of the Constitution, have determined that it was, in fact, legal.

                  Since they have the authority to determine what is and isn't legal, their declaring it legal made it so, at least for the time being. It's unlikely, but an upper court could overturn the ruling on appeal.

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:05:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  well (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Angie in WA State

                    you're kind of combining two things that aren't the same thing. the court ultimately ruled that it was legal to remove the protesters, yes. but surely the police committed crimes during the removal of the protesters which, while they never will be prosecuted, are not given legal protection just because the courts allowed the police to clear the area.

                    •  "surely they committed crimes" (0+ / 0-)

                      such as?

                      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                      by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You're right. Some of the individual cops... (4+ / 0-)

                      ...may have committed crimes if they used excessive force in clearing out the protesters. Though clearing out the park itself was legal, illegal acts may have occurred in the process of carrying it out. No question there.

                      I would like for any such crimes to be prosecuted, but you're right in that they probably won't be.

                      But those who were injured in the process might have grounds for a civil action against the police or against the individual officers for that.

                      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                      by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:56:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, but that's the state of the law. (0+ / 0-)

                  People need to constantly keep it in mind that what is legal and what is right are completely independent from one another.

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:06:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I believe the argument made when President... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Angie in WA State, navajo

                ...Obama jumps through hoops to get two or three Republicans on board some diluted legislation is that he is President of all the people not just the ones who plan to vote for him.

                The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

                by Meteor Blades on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:45:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That is also a load of crap, as the President (4+ / 0-)

                  apparently learned this year.   At least, the demotion of Bill Daley gives us hope of that.

                  Moreover, this is not so much about Obama as OWS.  It's incoherent to proclaim that it is a nonpartisan movement that is not loyal or beholden to any politician, and then complain that a politician doesn't act like he's their paid lobbyist.

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:55:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you're denying that for the past two... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    navajo

                    ...years, up until the last few months when Obama slipped back into the campaign mode he does so well, a certain segment of his supporters at Daily Kos have repeatedly argued that the President's disdain for those to his left and his solicitousness for those to his right is understandable and acceptable because he is President of all the people, not just progressives?

                    The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

                    by Meteor Blades on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:21:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I never endorsed that nonsense, so again (0+ / 0-)

                      it's irrelevant to this discussion.

                      On the other hand,  you were quite eager to legitimize an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory here because it was OWS activists pushing it.  

                      You encouraged divisive paranoia instead of asking for proof.

                      We expect better of you.

                      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                      by Geekesque on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:20:36 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  we need to push this meme more. (0+ / 0-)
              The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

              you'd think this would have occurred to someone between 1776 and now wouldn't you?

              oh! wait...

              blink-- pale cold

              by zedaker on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:33:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Geekesque: "Homeland Security" COACHED the (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            willie2011, Marie, GAladybug

            18 different mayors who "had a problem with Occupy"  in at least two different conference calls. That means the Feds already interfered.

            Now, aside from the fact that "homeland security" is an unconstitutional travesty, that means the President NEEDS to put a stop to this crap.

            LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:09:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Your unconditional support negates your (0+ / 0-)

          challenges and demands for accountability and, effectively, renders them up as so much empty rhetoric.

        •  Off to Top Comments with You! (0+ / 0-)

          For outlining a brief but full description of a modern Democratic view.

          ps...

          This should be on the cover of the briefing of every new member of the Democratic Caucus, on their first day in D.C.

          To remind them that they, unlike the public buildings they occupy for two and four and six years at a time, are merely temporary in nature.

          * * *
          I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
          * * *
          "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy."
          THEODORE ROOSEVELT

          by Angie in WA State on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:31:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Also (5+ / 0-)

        Don't use terms like "Opologists" if you don't want to get hammered.

        Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

        by tomjones on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:46:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They are out in force. (3+ / 0-)

      Look there is one now.

      Shall we set a timer for when they start to disparage the mentally ill?

      Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

      by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:37:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This Is Classic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis
    "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," Obama said

    Just classic.

    I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

    by superscalar on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:13:11 AM PST

  •  She does make a rather (9+ / 0-)

    large assumption that Obama was called and told the raids were happening and when. Yes yes I know DHS and the FBI were supposedly coordinating. Pardon me if I really don't buy this one yet based on the source of the reporting on it the first place.

    Now had he known or if he did know then she has a case.

    Republicans 2012 . . . Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job.

    by jsfox on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:15:45 AM PST

  •  the President is irrelevant (13+ / 0-)

    As has been explained, his main purpose is to be a "D" who won't appoint crazy rightwingers to the Supreme Court.

    We've been told he can't take a position because then it will be "all about him". Unless, of course, he takes a right of center position, which is ok because he's "President of all the people. Weren't you listening?"

    "Things are never so bad they can't get worse" - Dallasdoc

    by Shahryar on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:15:55 AM PST

  •  seriously? (15+ / 0-)

    it's like half of this site doesn't understand the law, constitution or balance of power in this country.  

    or the realities of governing for that matter.

    this isn't about the President.  he cannot stop the cities from doing this.  

  •  I hold the mayors accountable (13+ / 0-)

    I mean sure, Obama could have picked up the phone and said go easy on these people, but lets put the blame squarely where it belongs: the mayors of these cities. Mayor Quan, Mayor Adams, Mayor Bloomberg...I am lookin' at you. They are  the ones responsible for what happens in their cities, not President Obama.

    my 2 cents.

    They call me Gato, I have metal joints. Beat me up and earn 15 silver points. -- Gato the Robot, Chrono Trigger

    by rexymeteorite on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:20:14 AM PST

  •  The Cult of Blame Obama for Everything (5+ / 0-)

    is alive and well on the left.

    Amazing.

    The guy has fucked up so much while in office, you'd thing people would be content to focus on that instead of manufacturing bullshit reasons to whine.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:20:48 AM PST

  •  I disagree with Ehrenreich and you. (9+ / 0-)
    When Martin marched, when Lewis marched, when Freedom Riders were brutalized, when children attempting to attend school were attacked, Presidents before you acted.

    But only when they were absolutely forced to. If you think Dr. King and the other civil rights movement leaders didn't have to force JFK and LBJ's hands, you're fooling yourself. They had to make it politically untenable for the President not to act.

    When armed forces attempted to crush unionization in Flint, President Roosevelt acted to protect.

    And he did so in the enforcement of a specific federal law. What specific federal law did NYPD break, such that the President would have been justified in enforcing federal law? (And don't cite the First Amendment here, since that would require a federal court finding that the NYPD's actions were in violation of the First Amendment in order to justify presidential action.)

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:23:32 AM PST

    •  A leader sets the tone. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      What tone is being set by this admin?

      "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

      by tardis10 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:28:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  FDR was regularly called a tool of the bankers... (6+ / 0-)

        ...when he was President. Obviously he didn't set the right tone either.

        JFK and LBJ were routinely criticized for their inaction on civil rights, and their willingness to take action only when political expediency required it. Obviously they didn't set the right tone either.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:44:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah,FDR's "I welcome their hatred" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marie, Angie in WA State

          speech was definitely not tone setting. Funny how it still resonates 75 years later.  

          We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

          They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

          Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

          I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.


          "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

          by tardis10 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  President Obama has said similar things. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Unit Zero

            But of course, those are "just words," right?

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:59:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No,nothing a POTUS says is ever (0+ / 0-)

              "just words". We both know that. So why would you characterize it as such?

              "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

              by tardis10 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:32:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And yet you cite FDR's words... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                virginislandsguy, FrankAletha

                ...as an indication that he "set the tone"—despite the fact that throughout his administration, despite those words, there were many who accused him of serving the bankers.

                If you're going to suggest that FDR's words are sufficient for his setting the tone, then you can't turn around and say that Barack Obama's are not.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:41:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Please. The FACT that FDR set a (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Angie in WA State

                  populist,New Deal tone that resonated through out the US (and further) for generations is not disputable. It really isn't. Nor is it disputable that FDR had critics on his left. Or that FDR was able to implement various sweeping programs and policies that gave credence to his rhetoric because he had a more supportive legislature.
                  But we live in different times. Legislative policy & program implementation are more timid and implementation much slower. [Feature or bug? Let's leave that one for another day]  Your belief that BO has effectively set a tone is very disputable. Clearly.The success OWS has had in shifting the national conversation from debt to economic inequality shows that. The growing meme that there is no difference between the Dems and the GOP does as well. As well as being POTUS,Barack Obama is the head of the Democratic Party. He is the leader and he sets the tone. So we are back to square one of our discussion.
                  Always nice to chat with you. But we hear this very differently.  

                  "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

                  by tardis10 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:26:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  What he is communicating is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        workingforprogress, tardis10

        that mayors are free to act as they please with no interference.

        •  And until they're in violation... (3+ / 0-)

          ...of a federal law or a federal court order, that is the proper thing for the President of the United States to be communicating.

          Just think about whether you really want to give the President the power to use federal forces to enforce his/her interpretation of the First Amendment, without the backing of federal law or federal court orders.

          Think about whether you'd want President Gingrich deciding that laws restricting abortion-clinic protests from blocking entryways is a violation of their First Amendment rights, and sending in federal forces to ensure that they could block them to their heart's content.

          That's exactly the power you want President Obama to be claiming right now—the power to unilaterally impose his interpretation of the Constitution on state and local authorities.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:08:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The JUDGE said they were within their rights! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      THE JUDGE said they may set up their tents again, and they are!
      So that JUDGE can understand the rights inherent in our constitution, but the ENTIRE Justice Dept. cannot? The legal staff, the party philosophers?

      I can see that free speech means inconvenient challenges to our system of government or it MEANS NOTHING, so what is happening in the offices of our party?

      •  That JUDGE is the one who is empowered... (6+ / 0-)

        ...by the Constitution of the US and the Constitution of the State of New York to decide what actions the government can and cannot restrict under the First Amendment.

        The Justice Department does not have that power, and when we're honest with ourselves, you wouldn't want them to have that power. Imagine what President Gingrich would do with the authority to use his Justice Department to enforce his interpretation of the Constitution.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:42:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, the judge ruled against OWS. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B, Unit Zero

        You're a bit behind the news cycle.

        They did get a cherry-picked judge they had lined up to issue a restraining order, but it was reversed by a judge with the authority to hear the case.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:47:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  NO and This is why you must stop listening to TV (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marie, isabelle hayes

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
          This is from Last Night

          5.47pm: Paul Harris has made it into Zuccotti Park with the first wave of protesters, after police opened the barriers.

              Police have reopened Zuccotti Park, letting in protesters in one by one. They however searched bags and forbade anyone from carrying in tents or sleeping bags. The mood of those protesters who made them inside was celebratory. "We are still occupying Wall Street," said two young women as they high-fived. Zuccotti, though was empty of tents as protesters mingled among scores of police officers. There is no trace if the encampment that was here for two months.


          http://static.guim.co.uk/...
          6.59pm: Paul Harris has been speaking to protesters who have gone back into Zuccotti Park

              Lee Debo, who lives in the Bronx, said he was happy to be back in the park. "It is a compromis, but I woke up this morning hearing bad news and took the day off to come down. I was expecting the worst but here we are. You take what you can get," he said.

  •  one of the most prophetic writers out there (7+ / 0-)

    ehrenreich's words should never be taken lightly.

    hope springs eternal and DAMN is she getting tired!

    by alguien on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:25:42 AM PST

  •  I know this was long ago (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Marie

    but President Obama would have known what was going to happen in his daily presidential brief, just like President Bush II knew about a terrorist threat in his August 4, 2001 pdb.  After all, OWS and the other occupies have been on the radar.  That he doesn't speak about it is not surprising.

    •  What? (4+ / 0-)
      President Obama would have known what was going to happen in his daily presidential brief, just like President Bush II knew about a terrorist threat in his August 4, 2001 pdb

      Oy.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:46:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  all right geekesque, i agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy

        with a lot of what you're saying; and pbo is the one who got me willing to take interest in the government of my country again, after giving it up since the 70's;

        i believe in his talent and soul

        but what wouldn't i give to hear him say something, to give the movement the respect due it;

        those people are doing what he told us to do, and they've been risking their necks for our principles and us, the 99'ers; so

        i'm waiting, yes indeed, and
        i'm chilling, yes indeed, and
        i'm hoping that he will talk to us

    •  Really? (3+ / 0-)

      You think that being made aware of POTENTIAL TERRORIST ATTACKS is on the same level as being made aware of eviction of protesters from a park?

      Err...

      Um...

      Wow.

      Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

      by tomjones on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:57:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Presuming there was a high level (0+ / 0-)

      operation planned with Homeland Security, but that is quite a presumption to make.

    •  Owww (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe
      but President Obama would have known what was going to happen in his daily presidential brief, just like President Bush II knew about a terrorist threat in his August 4, 2001 pdb.

      Photobucket

      -6.25 -7.08 The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty. The glass is just twice as large as it needs to be. If you play Microsoft CD's backwards, you hear satanic things, but that's nothing, because if you play them forwards, they install Windows.

      by Unit Zero on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:13:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wish Barbara hadn't taken this approach (5+ / 0-)

    toward the issues surrounding the Occupy Movement.

    She also mentioned not voting. That is not conducive to change and only cuts our nose off to spite our face.

    Obama cannot take sides in this at all. First, it is not Presidential to come out in support of a newly formed movement that is pushing the boundaries of our current societal establishment.

    And Obama has spoken positively about the Occupy Movement and their aspirations.

    This is a people's movement in a democratic nation. Our success depends on moving the feelings and opinions of the people.

    The priests and rabbis are requisite sphere for the movement. Our veterans are another.

    You don't need Obama right now. He can't completely halt what will unfold from the militarization of our police forces. He didn't build that and it has had 10 long years of equipping itself and molding itself by Blackwater mercs' training.

    This will have to be handled city by city and town by town. Not sure just how you unpop the cork on releasing a militarized police force upon your own citizens.


    Bridge Closed: Republican Tax CUTS At Work

    You just gonna stand there and bleed
    Or you gonna do something about it?

    by bronte17 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:17:34 PM PST

    •  so well written, bronte, eom (0+ / 0-)
    •  The federal government is involved (0+ / 0-)

      with this.

      Not sure just how you unpop the cork on releasing a militarized police force upon your own citizens.

      They have been militarized with federal help, through DHS.  And those conference calls among mayors were coordinated.  The tactics were the same, the operations happening within a few days.  We are on our way to being a police state, with a Democrat in the White House, perpetuating and building upon the Bush/Cheney legacy.

      William O. Douglas saw this coming:

      As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
      •  But, the federal government is not an entity (0+ / 0-)

        unto itself that awoke one morning and made the decision to militarize our police forces to the max.

        That decision was done by Congress and pushed through by the bush administration. And nasty brutish men and their money-grubbing companies stepped up to take advantage.

        The monster called the Department of Homeland Security was created in a time of panic and fear by small-minded men.  Training was done by Dominionists affiliated with the Gothard cult and the Police Dynamics Institute as well as Blackwater mercs.

        The "federal government" didn't do this. The same bush cabal that stole our 2000 presidential election also unleashed their hounds of war upon us here at home. It was relentless.


        Bridge Closed: Republican Tax CUTS At Work

        You just gonna stand there and bleed
        Or you gonna do something about it?

        by bronte17 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:22:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was then and this is now. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          katiec

          Continuing that crap is a conscious choice.  Upping the ante is not what Mr. HopeandChange campaigned on.

          •  Upping what ante? (0+ / 0-)

            DHS coordination with mayors?

            You surely know that Obama is not involved with that?

            The militarization occurred over the course of the bush cabal administration. Joe Lieberman is the Senator in charge of DHS (Chairman). If you wanna bitch you might want to aim your ire at him. But, everyone wants to take the easy way out and bitch at one man in one branch of government. It's just too difficult to hit the 50 Senators on the head and the 435 Representatives. The Broken Branch that gets to sidestep responsibility and Congress likes it that way. And, of course, all the lobbyists are out of reach. And the RATS on our SCOTUS get a little dig here and there, but otherwise the whining all hits Obama.  

            We aren't just "on our way" to being a police state... we arrived there years ago. Long before Obama ever set foot in the Oval Office.


            Bridge Closed: Republican Tax CUTS At Work

            You just gonna stand there and bleed
            Or you gonna do something about it?

            by bronte17 on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 05:13:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I doubt that "Independent" (0+ / 0-)

    Mike Bloomberg called Obama, Schumer or Gillibrand to tell them, "Oh, by the way, I'm raiding the Wall Street protest tonight." Hard to stop something you don't know is going on.

    I'd prefer that Obama, and indeed politicians in general, keep their paws off the Occupy movement for now -- that way the FOXies and other right-wing blatherers can't say that it's just a partisan Democratic smear on hard working bankers and other money folk. I'll bet there are some Republicans who wish they could say the Tea Party wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.

    Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

    by Cali Scribe on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:27:22 PM PST

    •  OWS OWS (0+ / 0-)

      Many many diaries about this.

      So much angst about this.

      Let's blame Obama. So not surprising.

      Yet no one gives a rat's ass about two Supreme Court Justices attending a dinner, bring invited to said dinner by the lawyer who will be advocating against the ACA?

      Come on.......

      The President of the United States has limited powers.

      The Supreme Court has the ability to make decisions that will last decades.

      So get off OWS and see what is happening right under your noses. These Justices clearly have a conflict of interest.

      But the Constitution does not demand they recuse themselves.

      Go scream about other important issues.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site