Skip to main content

This isn't about "pragmatists" vs "idealists" on the left, this is bigger than all of us. Please recognize that when considering where all of America is today. Not that I am a better arbiter than you may be, that's just how I see it outside of this Democratic blog.

And I can see it coming already, on one hand the GOP insults OWS activists, on the other hand they are quietly trying to co-opt our message and turn this whole thing into a "blame Obama-fest".

Because we all know from day one that the GOP decided they would be a do-nothing congress during Obama's first term so they could lay the blame of the 2008 market collapse at the feet of President Obama. The GOP is counting on everyone blaming Obama and Obama alone for the mess they helped create.

Don't blame Wall Street. Blame Obama.

Don't blame Wall Street. Blame the Government and Obama.

Don't blame Wall Street or Republicans. Blame the Government and Obama.

Republicans who voted down every reform Obama offered so they can have more tax cuts for the rich would just LOVE IT if OWS became a liberal bash Obama-fest.

But OccupyWallStreet is NOT liberal, it is American. It is moderate and independent and a little liberal and a little libertarian, but overall it is American.

American first.

But since the GOP and Fox News can not wholly own it, they must destroy it.

More below the fold . . .

The GOP wants to divide OWS activists and pit them against Obama supporters, thus turning off Democrats and Independents who might be supportive of OccupyWallStreet's pro-working class anti-corporate special interest message and vice versa. This is a classic "divide and conquer" tactic. The goal is to destroy anything that doesn't support Republicans, and this tactic usually works.

Now, I have said it before and I will say it again, I will NOT allow either party to co-opt OccupyWallStreet, neither Democrat or Republican, because our problem lies within the corrupt two party system, but at the same time, I must admit, that there is a good chance that if we play our cards right we can force the Democratic party to actually fight for working class people the way they are supposed to. There is no chance of that ever happening with the GOP. None. Zero. Zilch.

I have accepted the fact that many Fox News viewers are a lost cause. They represent the pro-1% wing of the 99%, and they keep voting to screw themselves and the rest of the 99% because Fox News told them that everything that is not conservative is Hitler, so I'm not too worried about losing the potential support of the die-hard Fox viewers.

But I am concerned about losing the support of sensible people in the middle ranges of American politics, those of us who are neither the far left or the far right, people who don't hate Obama with a passion, people who will not support Obama no matter what he does, people who might support him or would at least pressure him with constructive criticism to do the right thing for millions of working class Americans. These are the people that OccupyWallStreet risks losing if they allow themselves to become an anti-Obama fest. Corporate Republicans (and the Corporate Democrats who love them) would be thrilled if OWS began to focus on protesting Obama fundraisers while ignoring the real problems such as America's corrupt campaign finance system, growing income inequality and the sordid business practices in America's boardrooms that haven't changed a bit since the crash of 2008.

So let's keep our eyes on the prize, people. The goals of OccupyWallStreet, as I see them, are larger than just one session of congress or one election. Winning an election is not the goal, but neither should we allow the bad guys to win one either because we we're so busy at each others throats that they managed again to have their way (and yes, I'm calling the Wall Street conservatives who call me a dirtbag the bad guys, though they are not alone in this regard.)

The GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the wealthiest 1%, and for far too long the Dem Establishment has been their willing partner in crime. I say that we should SHIFT FOCUS, away from the Presidency and over to Congress and Wall Street, the corrupt Houses of Boehner and Reid and the corporate boardrooms that bribe our politicians. Yes, we should protest fundraisers, all the fundraisers, including President Obama's, but we must be vigilant and make sure that we do not allow the GOP to co-opt OccupyWallStreet and turn it into a "blame Obama-fest", because that's exactly what Wall Street lobbyists would want.

Tips and flames for my humble thoughts on this matter . . . .

Cheers, and peace and love to all

Image Hosting by PictureTrail.com

You can follow me on twitter while you still can @JesseLaGreca

Originally posted to MinistryOfTruth on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:08 AM PST.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement.

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

  •  Tips for shifting focus (350+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Keori, doroma, webranding, Doctor Locrian, sidnora, kestrel9000, Supavash, anodnhajo, Cinnamon, DWG, Dancun74, ZAPatty, crystal eyes, markdd, DRo, Debbie in ME, Karl Rover, hillbrook green, hulibow, wyvern, MartyM, LynChi, vacilando, Justina, dance you monster, Gary Norton, myboo, Preston S, One Pissed Off Liberal, zonk, kathny, MKinTN, Geekesque, itsbenj, bleeding heart, princesspat, BruinKid, DiegoUK, journeyman, Tam in CA, x, mallyroyal, Libby Shaw, LaughingPlanet, Drewid, rja, irate, Horace Boothroyd III, OIL GUY, CamillesDad1, Gowrie Gal, Curt Matlock, Inameli, Fe Bongolan, Pinto Pony, LillithMc, Paul Ferguson, krllos, teharper428, sherlyle, Dreaming of Better Days, smartdemmg, Wildthumb, Empower Ink, LSmith, Betty Pinson, AAMOM, Rogneid, IowaBiologist, gulfgal98, SaintC, qannabbos, kat68, GMFORD, appledown, gramofsam1, multilee, Losty, Shockwave, allergywoman, BobBlueMass, followyourbliss, Clytemnestra, reddbierd, jdsnebraska, NMRed, blue aardvark, Brooke In Seattle, Mistral Wind, poliwrangler, maggiejean, 4Freedom, Polly Syllabic, SwedishJewfish, beforedawn, sviscusi, litoralis, OnlyWords, shari, kharma, jimstaro, leftykook, KnotIookin, DarienComp, snoopydawg, gauchiste, Little Lulu, puakev, BrowniesAreGood, AnnieR, Plubius, joe wobblie, CoExistNow, SoCalSal, deviant24x, SeattleTammy, Hear Our Voices, Debs2, mango, Dartagnan, Ashaman, kurious, Sybil Liberty, sja, Alma, KalHermit, sunmusing, bfitzinAR, kevin k, missLotus, TokenLiberal, mconvente, kck, tytalus, Mac in Maine, Observerinvancouver, westyny, doingbusinessas, Jeff Simpson, GeorgeXVIII, DEMonrat ankle biter, eru, Ray Pensador, stegro, statsone, Spaghetti Western, Sandino, glendaw271, hoof32, legendmn, reginahny, grannycarol, mrsgoo, sostos, pamelabrown, SlowNomad, citisven, Brown Thrasher, Tool, ibinreno, davboyce, briefer, rmonroe, Scioto, member of the msm, haremoor, trumpeter, OLinda, buckstop, Terminus, vgranucci, LeislerNYC, bronte17, kefauver, live1, Kharafina, jsfox, oldmanriver, Zenara, not2plato, DeminNewJ, Iddybud, broths, We Won, Mother Mags, Arahahex, DESGIV, OpherGopher, mikeconwell, Escamillo, Lost and Found, sideboth, BlueInRedCincy, Vacationland, paradise50, Savvy813, On The Bus, vadasz, not4morewars, seefleur, ajr111240, rockhound, eaglekid85va, neecie100, Sembtex, maybeeso in michigan, smoothnmellow, nickrud, ruleoflaw, UncleCharlie, Mislead, Otteray Scribe, myadestes, petulans, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, highacidity, oldcrow, mightymouse, prettygirlxoxoxo, cookseytalbott, llbear, jan4insight, dotsright, SouthernLiberalinMD, raptavio, mystery2me, Bernie68, operculum, sunbro, on board 47, mrchips46, Azubia, Jake Williams, LABobsterofAnaheim, Opposite Reaction, kerflooey, zenox, BarackStarObama, dsb, naperken, scooter in brooklyn, pileta, TarheelDem, scilicet, kjoftherock, dejavu, ejmw, suejazz, valadon, lostinamerica, Renee, stevenwag, Floande, waltmon, msdrown, mumtaznepal, elengul, qm1pooh, Thinking Fella, George Pirpiris, PBen, SandersRavilyn, J M F, coolbreeze, Catskill Julie, Glen The Plumber, Free Jazz at High Noon, TrueBlueMajority, zett, Chi, artr2, Oaktown Girl, Chitown Kev, Knucklehead, fabucat, bfbenn, CupofTea, fiddlingnero, Eddie L, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, mofembot, Taxmancometh, Involuntary Exile, readerwriter, Matt Z, TLS66, Wary, pioneer111, Doctor Who, frankzappatista, aaraujo, opinionated, sea note, effervescent, mookins, elwior, smileycreek, SeaTurtle, millwood, Simple, Xavier Onassis EMTP, pickandshovel, SherwoodB, liberte, Jorybu, shortgirl, LinSea, cacamp, on the cusp, radical simplicity, Skennet Boch, kerplunk, Bluesee, bnasley, DixieDishrag, Jersey Girl, PJEvans, 88kathy, KenBee, drawingporno, Unbozo, DamselleFly, sawgrass727, Quilldriver, meatballs, Joe Bacon, sabo33, Xapulin, Canyon Lefty, splashy, Mad Season, James Kresnik, Ginny in CO, Jeff Y, Futuristic Dreamer, ninkasi23, ogre, Kaneblues, kalika, Lisa Lockwood, Oh Mary Oh, tomephil, CTPatriot, riverlover, Ed in Montana, stonedoubt, Gustogirl, ColoTim, ItsaMathJoke

    it is my opinion that OWS should be shifting focus, to congress, to our local governments, and to the boardrooms of corporate America. This is not a sprint, it's a marathon.

    #OccupyWallStreet ~ I will protest when and where I damn well please. I have the constitution in my pocket. That is my permit.

    by MinistryOfTruth on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:08:28 AM PST

    •  Thanks, Jesse (64+ / 0-)

      This is exactly the clarity of thinking we need. Eyes on the prize.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:17:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some straight talk to a straight-talker (42+ / 0-)

      More and more, Jesse, you're sounding like a Democratic partisan. Increasingly you're moving away from the OWS core message -- a critique of our corrupt system and corrupted democracy -- and toward a standard Democratic-Daily Kosesque message targeting Republicans. On Ed Schlutz, in the name of non-partisanship, you blasted a few blue dogs like Max Baucus -- as if the problems weren't much deeper, as if President Obama weren't part of the problem.

      I don't presume to speak for OWS, but the movement is manifestly a more radical (no, not moderate) uprising that is aiming higher and digging deeper than, you know: Look at the awful GOP (and Max Baucus.)

      •  Oh, and as for this (46+ / 0-)
        it is my opinion that OWS should be shifting focus, to congress, to our local governments, and to the boardrooms of corporate America. This is not a sprint, it's a marathon.

        Maybe you have different intel, by according to everything I'm reading, OWS is shifting to focus on foreclosures, occupying homes, and joining forces with the anti-bank and housing rights movements. A great move, imo, and a lot wiser than shifting focus to Congress at this point.

        •  It's all well and good to be (54+ / 0-)

          occupying foreclosures, but the LAWS that need to be written to prevent another foreclosure massacre need to be written in Congress.  They need to be enforced by regulatory agencies put in place by government.

          No matter how you slice it, at some point OWS has to get political.  We have to turn to electoral politics to make real change.  As long as there are no laws on the books that prevent CDS and MBS in the ways they were done, this will happen again.  As long as there are no laws separating banks from investment firms, and protecting our deposits, it will all happen again.

          Few Americans want to throw out our whole system of government.  The vast majority of Americans want laws in place, and enforced.  That requires political action.

          •  Fighting foreclosures is political (28+ / 0-)

            This is the recurring disconnect with OWS:  some people see only one (I would argue hackneyed at this point) approach to change- legislative lobbying (of the people sort).  Fighting foreclosures or occupying foreclosed homes is a political act and one that will have a  far greater impact than protesting congress.  The human face put on the economic crises of our time is far more likely to lead to legislative wins than targeting congress.  Look at how the debate has changed in just two months.  Andrew Cuomo, the whore governor of NY, prided himself during his campaign and budget battles with letting the millionaire's tax expire with the dishonest excuse that extending it would lead to a maass exodus from NYS.  A democratic governor is peddling this shit!  Well, as of yesterday, Cuomo is now looking at increasing taxes on the wealthy.  He did not have a come-to-Jesus moment.  He sees what is happening in his state.  He sees that he cannot pass off his coddling of the 1% to an active citizenry.  The mere presence and threat of OWS has changed the discussion in NY politics.  Compare this to the years and years of protests and petitions and even boycotts (and I participated in a lot of them) and what they have yielded.

            •  Some Congresscritters need to be replaced (16+ / 0-)

              Start with the Barney Fife Brigade:
              Louie Gohmert(TX-01)
              Joe Wilson(SC-02)
              Joe Walsh (IL-14)
              Steve King (IA-05)
              Michele Bachmann(MN-06)
              Tom Graves(GA-09)
              Paul Broun(GA-10)
              John Culberson(TX-07)
              Phil Gingrey(GA-11)
              Clif Stearns(FL-06)
              Frank Guinta(NH-01)
              Charles Bass(NH-02)
              Allen West(FL-22)
              Daniel Webster(FL-08)
              Austin Scott(GA-08)
              Lou Barletta(PA-11)
              Patrick McHenry(NC-10)
              Chip Cravaack(MN-08)
              Thaddeus McCotter(MI-11)
              Sean Duffy(WI-07)
              Eric Cantor(VA-07)
              Jeff Denham(CA-19)
              Steve Womack(AR-03)
              Steve Southerland(FL-02)
              Virginia Foxx(NC-05)
              Joe Heck(NV-03)
              John Campbell(CA-48)
              Andy Harris (MD-01)
              Peter King (NY-03)
              Frank Lobiondo(NJ-02)
              Nan Hayworth (NY-19)
              Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
              Mike Coffman (CO-06)
              Robert Dold (IL-10)
              John Fleming (LA-04)
              Diane Black (TN-06)
              Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
              Justin Amash (MI-03)
              Robert Hurt (VA-05)
              Jim Jordan (OH-04)
              Jean Schmidt (OH-02)
              Don Young (AK)
              Paul Ryan (WI-01)

              Some congress critters have abrogated their obligations to private corporations.  That's corrupt because they're being paid to do a job they're not doing.
              Some congress critters propose legislation solely for the purpose of extorting support by promising not to be as punitive as they might be.  That's mafia-like corruption.
              Some congress critters are simply incompetent. They flap their lips and parrot set speeches, but they can't think.  The people who run them are corrupt.

              People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

              by hannah on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:46:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I agree whole heartedly. We need to make the (4+ / 0-)

              Congress irrelevant. If they want to continue to exist they need to come to us. That is a long way down the road.

              To even pretend to deal with congress in their wholly owned system is to play Candy land with a 4 year old that changes to rules as he goes. You can not win the game, and
              it is a complete waste of our time and resources, unless for some reason you need to entertain the child.

              Or maybe if you want to experiment with discovering just how deeply the system is rigged against us. That I might be able to get behind.

              I think we need to continue to explore our own power, explore our own methods of protest, and find out how much we can live without these people. Which is pretty much completely, I would guess.

              I do totally agree that it is imperative for us to guard against being co-opted by either completely corrupt political house.

              We are Americans fighting for our homes, and freedoms. If any aspect of our government is fit to be saved, let them present it to us, and explain why it should be preserved. Like the servants they are supposed to be.

              •  Um. Good luck with that. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                journeyman

                That's sounds very lofty and idealistic, but you got a plan that us regular folks can get on board with?  Lots of us are out here just trying to put food on the table and lofty ideas don't pay the bills.  Neither does action without a reward system for those in Congress who are working on our behalf.  Neither does it address the "whys" on how bank regulation should be reconstructed to protect people losing their homes.

                Just sayin'.

                •  It has been done, it can be done by us. (0+ / 0-)

                  http://sacsis.org.za/...

                  In the mean time, the last thing I mean to be is lofty. I am scared most of the time these days, but the system is broken, and to continue to imagine that these 1%ers will suddenly develope morals is hoping for a mirical even I can't buy into. Besides, their system is not sustainable anyway. Our standard of living must change no matter what, for the planet's sake, if nothing else. Let that lifestyle be  created by us, not dictated to us.

                  I am not saying it is going to be pretty, but at least we will be free.

                  Faith.

                •  Well then keep on sending e-mails to congress (0+ / 0-)

                  I wish you the best of luck.  

          •  Yeah. How? (0+ / 0-)

            I'm really looking for an answer here.

            Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:35:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OWS has somewhat changed the narrative (8+ / 0-)

              so now is the time to get talking with people you wouldn't ordinarily talk to.  Even Congresscritters.  I get a little peeved when I see comments here like "My congressperson is a teabaggers, so I don't even bother."

              It's time to bother if you haven't been all along.  To let those fuckers know that OWS speaks for us on many levels.  And encourage others to do the same....now that more people know there are others in the same leaky boat and WHY, you may have some better success in getting people involved.

              And work to unseat the corruption.  There has never been a magic formula for changing our politicis.  The problem is too few people care enough to try to do it.  I'm not above using fear when I try to persuade people to get involved.  I'm not afraid to tell them that we will end up all working for slave wages, just liike the Chinese workers, if we don't start demanding our piece of the pie.

          •  As I see it, OWS is already (2+ / 0-)

            "political". How can it not be?

            No matter how you slice it, at some point OWS has to get political.

            Or did you mean to say OWS at some point needs to get "partisan"?

            As for..

            Few Americans want to throw out our whole system of government.

            I suppose the truth of this statement would turn on how one defines "system".

            H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

            by Knarfc on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:49:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Fight both ways (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RockyMtnLib

            Help those the system has left down and out, and fight the system to stop it from doing that to one more person.  This isn't an either or deal.

            I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

            by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 12:05:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Laws don't change (0+ / 0-)

            until 2017 at the earliest.  This is all groundwork.

            The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

            "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

            by Punditus Maximus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:10:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I will say this, it is a good thing (83+ / 0-)

          that sooo many people are involved that we can put pressure on many points at the same time, I feel pressure is required, I am simply stating that it is my opinion that we should focus on the smaller corrupt politicians below the Presidential level, if we build pressure on local corrupt pols and congress we can be more effective in the short term, whereas if we build up more short term momentum on a local level only then can we truly impact serious reform on a national level. This is simply my view strategically at this moment.

          As to the larger point of what I wrote today, I'm not saying that we should not criticize Obama, far from it, I'm just saying that we should guard from allowing the focus to be all about Obama. Nothing more than that

          #OccupyWallStreet ~ I will protest when and where I damn well please. I have the constitution in my pocket. That is my permit.

          by MinistryOfTruth on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:46:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree completely (27+ / 0-)

            Obama definitely deserves criticism but if we follow in the line of many on this site that EVERYTHING is Obama's fault, that completely falls in line with the GOP playbook.

            •  bs (5+ / 0-)

              sorry, but that's not true.

              can you name one person or link to a single comment from somebody on here who states that "EVERYTHING" (capslock yours) is Obama's fault?

              •  Not those exact words (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Escamillo, krllos, Matt Z, fcvaguy, elwior

                but they certainly act like it. Also, there was someone in this  thread who was saying that the economic crisis was 100% Obama's fault. You don't have to believe me but I'm not going to go through this again to find it.

              •  It's called exaggeration. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Supavash, CupofTea

                There are plenty of people who spin everything in one direction or another, so that "everything" -- not literally everything but the vast majority of individual "things" -- is about how great or how awful Obama is. (More "awfuls" left here, however, after the "strike," some time back, I think.) Still, if you look, you'll see the same names reccing  pro-and anti-Obama comments over and over again. Or at least that's how it seems to me.

                A lot of people tend to fall into a kind of mental autopilot at times. Fortunately, there's been less of the noun-a-verb-and-Obama diaries we used to see around here lately, but in comments, there are certain people you can expect to chime in in a particular and all-too-reliable fashion.

                Personally, I think this is a great diary for that reason. One of the few times I've ever agreed with MOT completely in a diary, btw.

                Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

                by LABobsterofAnaheim on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:18:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Besides, if ALL fault is (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              journeyman, elwior, doroma, Cordyc

              put on Obama, that's outside the realm of reality.  

              Not everything could possibly ever be one person's fault.  It's not a literal truth.   Therefore the concept itself is very political and very Republican. LOL.

          •  The problem with corrupt politicians (23+ / 0-)

            is that nearly every one of them is corrupt.  The system itself is corrupt.  IMHO, that is why the Occupy Movement is and should remain outside the political system and continue to build a social movement.  The social movement will become a political force in time.

            You are right that this is a marathon, actually an ultra marathon, but first the Occupy Movement must develop the critical mass of informed people to press for political change.  That is what is happening now.  Ironically, this guest opinion column appeared in today's Asheville Citizen Times.  This column signals the first indication of a cross over to mainstream in this area (Asheville is a fairly progressive city) and the first time positive news of the Occupy movement has been in this newspaper.

            I have regularly been posting links to Occupy news and diaries on my Facebook page and I have yet to have received a single comment, even from my more progressive friends.  It is going to take time for the Occupy Movement to really connect with mainstream America, particularly in the heartland and the South  We are trying to undo over 30 years of destruction of this country and it is going to take time to wake people up to what has happened to their future as a result.

            The United States is not just losing its capacity to do great things. It's losing its soul.--Bob Herbert. gulfgal98's corollary- We are fighting back to save our soul. Thank you, #OWS for empowering us all.

            by gulfgal98 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:16:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And a large part of that is crushing... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Halandri, mightymouse, Chi, Matt Z, elwior

            ...the efforts of Republicans (led by word manipulator Frank Luntz) to manipulate the debate in a way that protects the 1 percent against the 99 percent. For more about Luntz and his business and how it works to mislead and disinform, see this.

            "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Gandhi

            by alaprst on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:49:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  This sounds like a rationalization (5+ / 0-)

            not an action plan.  If you are afraid to challenge Obama for some optic reason, simply acknowledge it.  Personally, I think letting any politician off the hook, which is what you are advocating, is a huge disservice to the movement.

            •  I don't think it's about "not challenging Obama." (11+ / 0-)

              In my recent travels, what I'm hearing from a lot of my more conservative/libertarian (or dfh-phobic) family is something along the lines of: If OWS is so upset with the system, why don't they put pressure where it is really needed, on the pols who created this mess. This is, I think, a deflection tactic. They're trying to say something like, pols write the laws, the laws have allowed this to happen, Obama is the head lawmaker, ERGO, Obama's got to go.

              That's not the kind of challenge to Obama that is helpful. Not because it might not be true, but because it's not an argument in support of what OWS is about. It's an attempt to co-opt OWS into an anti-Obama movement. It's actually an assault against the legitimacy of OWS. And it's one that makes a sense to a lot of the people who aren't teabaggers, but who "sort of get" teabaggers.

              In my reading (which is very armchair), OWS is not a pro- or anti-Obama movement. It's about the financial system, financial regulation, WS!, and the influence of all of that stuff on politics - right and left, Republican and Dem (probably more one than the other). Turning it into a quasi-left-seeming teabag movement that has anti-Obamism at its core is going to do nobody any good (well, nobody outside the 1%). But that's the strategy a lot of them are going for, and if we aren't diligent about it, it might work.

              And my baby's my common sense, so don't feed me planned obsolescence.

              by vadasz on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:09:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do not disagree with you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Annalize5

                but the diarist has argued for shifting the focus from the president to congress.  This is the kind of action that I think you are taking issue with, no?  I read the diarist's point as a concerted effort to move the spotlight from the president because it may be politically unpopular with some to congress, where he has no similar concerns.  I think you become that which you oppose when you start making decisions like this.  I agree that Obama should not be the focus of OWS, but his policies and decisions which favor the 1% at the expense of the 99% should always be targeted.  Trying to deflect attention exclusively to congress is purely partisan.  I do not know how the diarist can argue that he will not let the parties coopt the movement when he is doing jut that by deciding upon whom the spotlight should shine instead of on what it should be focused.  Seems a little too much like playing the same old games.  

                •  I don't think that is what Jesse is arguing, orest (7+ / 0-)

                  I think you are reading him wrong. IMO.  I don't think he is trying to deflect anything -- from anybody to anybody.  He is commenting that he is observing that deflection is what other people doing -- particularly strategists like Lunt.  

                  Tangible action plans to address home foreclosures, bankrupty act of 2005, and our banking structural system are conversations for mainstream to have -- regardless of what the politicians are doing.  Once we've had this discussion, we can see fit who is in line with our action plan and solutions and elect said officials.  Generalizing about party politics will actually hinder the movement.

                  At least I think that is sorta what he is saying...

                  •  If we want to change policy then we have to (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Canyon Lefty

                    target the body that writes the law, namely, the Congress.

                    The President is the Administrative Branch that implements existing law.  Now Obama can ask the Congress to pass certain laws like the Jobs Bill, but it is only a suggestion.  Obama has also held back because he's a pragmatist so he's only asking what he thinks might pass.  

                    I'd like to see Obama get a Progressive Congress in 2012 to work with on fixing the system.

                    Why do so many think Obama has ever had a progressive Congress who would pass the "Change" we seem to want so bad.

                    •  Sorry, i don't subscribe to the notion of the (0+ / 0-)

                      powerless presidency.  Also, he is the head of the executive branch, not the administrative branch.  True, he oversees the admin agencies, but there is no administrative branch of the government.  Perhaps you should take a political science class.  

                      And there is an inherent flaw in your thinking.  You admit that Obama has the power to implement (ie enforce) the laws.  Well, that is exactly what OWS and many other Americans are asking him to do.  And he has not been interested.  He is certainly not powerless (impotent perhaps) in this area.  

                      Your prescription that we must have a progressive congress is a bit overwrought.  If nothing can be accomplished short of a congress full of progressives, then we are in deep trouble.  And please explain to me how re-electing conservative Democrats leads to your necessity for change (ie a progressive congress).

                  •  Did he not say (0+ / 0-)

                    that focus should be shifted from Obama to congress?  Did he not also express a concern that targeting Obama may make the movement unpopular with some?  How have I misunderstood?

            •  This is the problem right here: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Plubius
              Personally, I think letting any politician off the hook, which is what you are advocating, is a huge disservice to the movement.

              Did you see that part there?  A disservice to "the movement", not "the country" not "the 99%", but "the movement".

              That's the effing problem.

              OWS is about OWS.  It is not about America.  It is not about the 99%.

              History is won by the writers.

              by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:59:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's ridiculous (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chi, poco, Futuristic Dreamer

                You are merely playing semantic games.  What is the substantive difference between saying OWS or the movement (by which was implied the OWS movement)?  Please explain.

                Furthermore, how is the word movement somehow contradictory or inconsistent with being concerned for the country or the 99%.  Oh, the civil rights movement- there's the problem.  It wasn't about the country!  It was about the movement.  Do you now see how assinine your aha! truly is?

                •  No. I'm not. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Plubius, Matt Z, frankzappatista, Halandri

                  I don't care about OWS.

                  I care about America.

                  OWS never talks about America except to say how much it sucks.

                  In short, it never makes explicit the idea that it wants to make this country better.

                  Maybe to you that is a word game.

                  But guess what?

                  To the overwhelming majority of the 99% it is not.

                  OWS does not project the absolutely crucial sense of commitment to a shared future with the rest of the country without which no movement can hope to succeed.

                  There is a reason that candidates for any office always try to identify themselves with the community they seek to represent.  Whether it is their county, their state or their country they will constantly talk about it and do their utmost to convince everyone who is listening that they deeply identify with the community that they are striving to represent.

                  OWS doesn't do that.

                  It doesn't talk about America except to impugn it.

                  OWS talks about OWS and the reason for that is very simple.  Whether consciously or not, the most vocal representatives of OWS identify with their movement more readily than they do with their country.

                  People see that.

                  When they do, they think "they don't speak for me."

                  And they are right.

                  Human emotional responses have evolved to be pretty sophisticated, much more so than human intellectual analysis.

                  Joe six-pack in Peoria sees OWS people saying an awful lot about OWS, but he never sees them talking about the only thing he has in common with them, the only place where he can emotionally connect to them: America--except of course in a disparaging way.

                  If you don't take pride in the community you seek to represent, it will never trust you.

                  OWS is not the 99% precisely because it doesn't even have a fucking clue how people feel, how their emotional response to issues affect their politics.

                  It is so painfully obvious that it hurts.

                  History is won by the writers.

                  by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:25:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poco

                    That sounds a bit unhinged.  There are a lot of projections in that comment and unsupported assertions.  OK, you hate OWS.  Do you consider yourself a progressive?  Because I would truly like to understand how a progressive would be so hostile to OWS.  

                    For the record, if you monitor your decisions on the basis of what Joe Sixpack in Peoria will think, you will condemn yourself to live by the least common denominator.  It's the equivalent of gauging the progress of the civil rights movement on the same basis.  Newsflash- some people will always lag behind.  If you do the right thing and make an eloquent case for it, you can eventually even convince your Joe.

                    •  You seem to have some trouble with reading (5+ / 0-)

                      comprehension.

                      Do I consider myself a "progressive"?

                      No.

                      "Progressive" is a label that liberals use when they are afraid of conservative bullies.

                      I am a liberal and a proud one.

                      I am a liberal.

                      As a sidenote here, I just have to wonder why you seem to think "progressive" is a positive label.

                      To me all it says is "pussy liberal".

                      Perhaps you think there is a good reason for abandoning the label that FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ used for their politics.

                      If so, I'd like to hear it.

                      Otherwise, when somebody says "I'm a progressive" the only thing I hear is "Basically I'm with you until those scary conservatives come along."

                      You know, you're not exactly a bar-fight friend.

                      Now, as to OWS:

                      I do not hate OWS.

                      In fact at first I was rather optimistic about it.

                      It's just that it's been screwing things up lately.

                      I mean, I'll grant you it started out well. It has done a great job in raising the subject of income inequality.  But Kim Kardashian also got people talking about marriage.  It's what you do once you have people's attention that matters.

                      OWS is screwing it up.  They were making great strides.  Now they are losing ground.

                      That is not an opinion.  That is a fact.  Just check out the PPP polls sponsored by our own DailyKos.

                      There is a reason OWS is now less popular than the Tea Party.

                      That reason is OWS's obsession with itself, and it's near total neglect of America, the community it presumes to represent.

                      There is a reason that Herman Cain is dropping in the polls and not only that he is a walking racial stereotype.  That reason is that Herman Cain talks about Herman Cain more than he talks about America.

                      Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

                      You speak of people "lagging behind" but you neglect the fact that OWS has lost popularity since it began.

                      It's not about some deluded morons in middle America "lagging behind".

                      It's about OWS losing many of the non-deluded reasonably intelligent people that started out on their side.

                      There is a reason they are losing support.  It is the same reason Herman Cain is losing support.

                      Their narcissism is becoming evident.

                      History is won by the writers.

                      by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:54:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Top three reasons why OWS is losing support (4+ / 0-)

                        3.  Attacking bargain hunting shoppers.  

                        2. Not having leadership

                        1.  Preaching

                      •  Why is your tone so hostile? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Xavier Onassis EMTP

                        You really seem to have an issue with semantics.  
                        Okay, please explain why a true-blue liberal- not
                        afraid to get in a bar fight- can be so hostile to a
                        nascent movement started by sincere people
                        who are addressing societal inequities.  I person-
                        ally do not care whether I am called a liberal or
                        a progressive, but I can assure you that I always
                        support people who are exercising their civic
                        rights and responsibilities to make the country a
                        better place.  Your criticisms are so amorphous
                        that it is impossible to engage on them.  You
                        seem content to hurl ad hominem invectives at
                        OWS instead to approaching it from a nurturing,
                        supportive position.  Now, I may not be your
                        brand of he-man liberal, but I do not shie from a
                        fight.  I stand by my brothers and sisters.  As is
                        so often the case, it is the louder ones (see your
                        tone) who are usually the first to abandon their
                        friends.  Funny that you raised that metaphor
                        considering your zeal to abandon and denigrate
                        OWS after a mere two months.

                        As for your bold statements of fact, I hope you
                        are capable of recognizing that they are no such
                        things.  Your logic is so fundamentally flawed and
                        unsupported that it's a waste of my time to
                        explicate.

                        •  If it is a waste of your time, (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Matt Z, frankzappatista, Plubius

                          then why are you still pestering me?

                          My problem with OWS is very simple:

                          They are screwing it up.

                          They are, in point of fact, according to the opinion polls commissioned by this very site, losing support.

                          That is indeed a fact.  You can look it up.  You may like to deny the facts, but at the end of the day, there they are.

                          Also, when you accuse somebody of being overly concerned with semantics and then accusing them of having amorphous criticisms, you contradict yourself.  On the one hand you claim your opponent is pedantically precise, on the other you assert that he is intolerably vague.  You can't have it both ways.

                          Let me try to put it you as simply as I can:

                          OWS is losing support.  It is losing support because it is self-absorbed and not providing concrete suggestions about the problems it, very effectively, brought to the attention of the national media.

                          Instead it is involved in flash-mobs, topless protests, camp outs and revolution cosplay.

                          It seems to be able to decide that it will protest a President Obama fundraiser, but can't agree to support his jobs bill.  It can't decide (or rather flat-out refuses) to back the Harkin-DeFazio financial transaction tax.

                          It seems to have decided that it is above politics and therefore will not condescend to support the measures that will most help the 99% it presumes to speak for.

                          Frankly, that upsets me and I am not alone.  I am well to the left of the median of the 99%.

                          And, and uh, one more thing: if you think I'd desert my friends in a fight, then you are as stupid as you are unpleasant.

                          You may well take exception to that last comment, but you had it coming.

                          History is won by the writers.

                          by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:47:57 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok, here's your first logic lesson (0+ / 0-)

                            although it's really about basic reasoning.  You made a number of statements (each separated by a hard return).  You will be interested to learn that each statement can be addressed in a separate manner.  For example, your fretting about labels (lib v. prog) demonstrates an overweening (IMO) concern for semantics.  At the same time- hope you can still follow me; it's almost obvious to most people- other statements, such as "their near total neglect of America," can be so vague by virtue of being merely conclusory, that they do not merit retort.  I hope you can apply this lesson in basic reasoning as you go forward.  (Yikes)

                      •  tipped for this (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        journeyman, Plubius, chrismorgan
                        "Progressive" is a label that liberals use when they are afraid of conservative bullies.

                        I am a liberal and a proud one.

                      •  Journeyman, you're gettin' kinda... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        elwior

                        unintelligible.  

                        "Narcissism?"  

                        Do you know everybody personally to call them that?  Or are you just hear to cause trouble?  

                        Sorry, but I can't participate in further discussion with you because there paid trolls here who get paid per response, so I'll just wish you the best and hope that you are better able to articulate your highest goals in the future.

                    •  He is not a progressive, (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      journeyman, Matt Z, frankzappatista

                      He is liberal Democrat. And an American.    

                      You don't understand that.  You don't understand that for the simple reason that you don't want to. You chose to shrug it all off as "hate."

                  •  I used to not care (0+ / 0-)

                    Now I feel fairly sure that I oppose.

                    •  Dynamics of movements. OWS doesn't know what it is (0+ / 0-)

                      anymore from what I see.  That seems to have started sometime around when some folks decided occupying real estate was more than just a tactic, that it would 'pollute' the movement to take public positions on specific policies, e.g., not endorsing Obama's American Jobs Acts as a start and demanding more, and some in it refusing to acknowledge the simple truth that whatever problems the Ds have, the current Thugs are the embodiment of the 1% and its agenda.

                      If it has had a crisis of identity, then unsurprisingly it would - and IMO does seem to - turn its attention - and thus its talk - too itself more than it should.  But that seems a typical development at this pt in its evolution given how movements like this seem to tend to develop.  This is an inherent problem with leaderless movements.  OWS seems worse b/c of among other things the cable news cycle and an explicit rejection not only of leadership but even of spokespersons who could credibly provide an 'emotional' identity for low info folks and speak to them in ways that both reassure and challenge. It doesn't have to be a MLK (tho that would be a God send, if OWs would accept him - whch I'm beginning to doubt) Imagine if a prominent General embraced the movement and got some blessing from it.  Hard to make an unpatriotic charge stick then, eh?  

                      Sadly tho, you simply can not have a national (or even regional) strategy (or in large measure tactics, for that matter) without some kind of central planning.  A SNCC if you will.  As a result, while I once had hope for it, I now expect OWS to fade away to a pathetic shadow of what it could have been under GOP/1% subversion, centrifigual forces, personality conflicts, and just the absurdity of a "national" movement composed of local atoms all of which claim to government by unanimous consensus.  (Has the absurdity that is the US Senate's 'unanimous consent' rule completely escaped OWS?)

                      BUT, that does not mean the core measure will fade away.  It will not. The 1/99% and income/opportunity inequality issues are politically potent and likely to fuel Democratic campaigns in 2012 to lesser or greater extents.  BO and some Democratic groups are already doing so, to lesser or greater extents.

                      The question is will OWS members and supporters embrace them as political allies in a political season and process or will they 'purity troll' themselves to irrelevance?  

                      We shall see, I suppose.

                      Anyhow, those are my thoughts at the moment.  

                    •  Finally. (0+ / 0-)

                      We're getting people to be honest about the fact that to be an establishment Democrat is to be in favor of the current system and impunity for banksters.

                      OWS is outside the bounds of currently allowed discourse.  People who think America is in irrevocable decline and cannot be changed are not going to be fond of OWS.

                      The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

                      "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

                      by Punditus Maximus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:13:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Excellent diary, but I don't see it as either/or (7+ / 0-)

            but rather both/and.  For each physically present "occupier", there are tens of thousands of us who are so thoroughly pissed off by the panoply of genuine "evil in high places", perhaps the most broad-based sociopathy in history, that we are ready to start lots of conversations we haven't, heretofore, been having.  The tension "out here" among the grass roots is palpable, and it ain't goin' away just because a few tents and books got swept away.  OWS has awakened us, and we're not about to doze off.  As for pressure on Congress, I think MSM, in the case of CBS at least, has handed us a great agenda with their two recent 60 Minutes episodes on congressional insider trading (perfectly legal), and the Jack Abramoff interview wherein he says all congressional staffers should be forbidden from ever becoming lobbyists.  When you leave Washington, you can't come back.  We should get behind some version of the Abramoff "Stay Home" Law.  And yeah, Obama needs to have his feet close to the fire, just like everyone else and I think the GOP bashobama trick is laughable and will blow up in their faces.

            And thanks MOT, for being a great point man.  We're hopelessly indebted to you.  

          •  Frankly, I don't really give a sh*t about what (9+ / 0-)

            Obama does most of the time, and I think it's a waste of valuable energy to make this movement about him, pro or con.

            In fact, the right wing wants this movement to be about him really badly.  So let's deny them the pleasure, shall we?

            Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:36:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Give the Prez a pass? Sure! Why not ? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            orestes1963, elwior

            He's the only President we have, and the alternatives are clearly so much worse.  

            I think we've heard THAT before, and more than once.

            But, personally, (and I have been following the OWS news in the MSM) I'm not SEEING a whole lot of '[Bama-Bashing -- and I imagine the MSM editors would just cream  to have some "OWS is Anti-Obama" material to work with.  Only, it just ain't there.

            What I am seeing a great deal of outrage against the overall one-and-a-half party system, of which President Obama happens to be the symbolic, temporary and titular head.

            If that reflects badly on him and makes his truebelievers feel a little face-slapped themselves ....  Awwwwwwww!

            •  Yeah, like back when we had Clinton (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kat68, Matt Z

              and Gore was looking to replace him.

              And then we got this genius looking to break up the one and a half party system:

              Photobucket

              And the result of this principled, nonpartisan stand and consciousness raising?

              This:

              Photobucket

              Well that's all fine, because things are different now.

              Meet the new boss:

              Photobucket

              Is it me, or did his hair get a little longer?

              History is won by the writers.

              by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:06:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It was Nader not SCOTUS that cost us in 2000 ! (0+ / 0-)

                Some say it. They believe it. That settles it.

                Of course, had Gore been a little less "Gentlemanly and Collegial " about the Florida recounts

                Or  if the national DSCC  had been a little more "assertive" about holding on to Massachusetts in 2010.

                Or had the Senate Majority been a little bolder about modifying the Cloture Rule in 2011

                We wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

                But none of it is Barack Obama's fault ... that's the important thing.   Well, that and maintaining the self-regard of  truebelievers

                Still,  thanks for the scary pictures.  

                If only OTW scared the WH  even half as much

                •  Nader alone was not a sufficient condition, (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Matt Z, Escamillo, Plubius

                  but he was certainly a necessary one.

                  So were all the useful idiots that supported him.

                  History is won by the writers.

                  by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:50:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Neccessary" ? I get it (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mad Season

                    Like the last player to strike out "lost the World Series" for his Team ...

                    It's unfair, illogical, and probably untrue -- but comforting.

                    I get it.

                    •  Do you? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Plubius

                      No Nader, no Bush.

                      There are many other elements that could be substituted for Nader, but at the end of the day, there it is: No Nader, no Bush.

                      History is won by the writers.

                      by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:43:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "No Nader, No Bush" --- Hoooboy ! (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Mad Season

                        I guess Nader isn't the only one to attract "useful idiots" ...

                        But consider this ... had Democrats shown a fraction of spine blocking Bush, the way Republicans have been blocking Obama,  during ... Oh, I dunno, the run-up to Iraq/Afghanistan .... the passage of the Tax Cuts ... the confirmation of Roberts and Alito --  Bush wouldn't be "Bush",  Boogeyman of the Beltway... he'd have been  the mediocre and failed Education President who DIDN'T get everything his puppet masters wanted, free for the asking.

                        As much as I thought the Nader campaign was ill-advised and wrong-headed, the "correct" answer to it at the time was NOT to pretend it wasn't happening and didn't matter-- which is pretty much what the Democratic Party Establishment chose to do.

                        A few rhetorical concessions and empty promises  tossed to the Nader-leaning voters might have gone a long way to making "No Bush At All" a reality.

                        Then again, :  Had Gore been even a little combative in Bush v. Gore ...

                        But sure ..."blame  "Nader. " that's the ticket!

                        It's not like it changes anything.  (Though it does sort of make Nader's  "both Parties operate the same (authoritarian)  way" notion sound a little less tinhat whackadoodle).

                        But as long as  it makes the Fanboy wing of the Obama machine feel better about themselves ... at least it's  cheaper than therapy.

                        •  Consider this: (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Plubius

                          No Nader, no Bush.

                          There it is, and you can't deny it.

                          And so I continue to blame Nader.  And I won't stop.

                          Because I am right.

                          And you know it.

                          History is won by the writers.

                          by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:59:49 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You are right? And I know it ... ? (0+ / 0-)

                            And you're not going to stop chanting your mindless mantra.

                            Hey, if it gives your life meaning and maybe puts a few bucks in your pocket -- why not ?

                          •  Truly pathetic (0+ / 0-)

                            It is people like you who are to blame for today's America.

                          •  Don't be stupid. (0+ / 0-)

                            No Gore, no Bush.  Nader was completely irrelevant compared to Al Gore running the worst campaign in living memory.

                            There is exactly one person to blame for Al Gore's loss -- Al Gore.  Al Gore didn't want to be President, and he made the rest of us pay for his vacillation.

                            The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

                            "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

                            by Punditus Maximus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:15:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Hey, look forward not back. (0+ / 0-)

                Obama told us we don't care about torture any more.

                The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

                "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

                by Punditus Maximus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:14:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed, Obama didn't create our corrupt system (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joanneleon, James Kresnik

            But, sadly, he's bought into it, when he campaigned otherwise in'08.

            Fool me once...

          •  All those pressure points are good, as they all (3+ / 0-)

            reiterate and return to the same strong message:  get your corruption and fealty to the 1% the hell out of my government and my life.

            It's the larger OWS message that must bring every single office holder to heel at the feet of the citizens they want to serve.

            Occupy The Voting Booth - vote for candidates that represent your Occupy values.

            by mumtaznepal on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:58:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think we have to be very careful about (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, James Kresnik

            introducing politics into the OWS discussion.  Many of us are excited about their movement because it opens the door to changing the political structure/climate in D.C.  And at this point, no one knows what that means, but we are certainly open to new ideas.  We should be able to agree that the current system is not working.

            Whether we are pro-Obama, anti-Obama, or just OWS supporters only, the people on this site should be able to work together to achieve a common goal...to end the corruption in D.C....that being said, we have to be realistic about our Democratic leaders and we have to admit that many of them (at this point) are not on the same page with OWS...and we have to explore the possibility that their reluctance to support the cause might be a result of being in bed with the financial criminals on Wall Street.

            Perhaps it is best to let the chips fall and if the OWS movement is able to purge the corrupt members from our own party, then we will be a better group in the long run.  We already know what will happen to the members of the republican party if OWS is successful.

        •  I saw this coming (19+ / 0-)

          Some geniuses actually thought they could channel all that OWS energy towards electing more lame ass, fake Democrats.

          But it can only work if it remains non-partisan. What will divide the movement is Democrats trying to use OWS for their own purposes.

          Most of the OWS people I'm involved with believe the electoral strategy has failed. And of course they are right. Electing more Democrats hasn't changed the rightward direction of this country one tiny bit.

          We need systemic reform. Not another bullshit election, controlled by the plutocrats, right down to what questions get asked in the "debates".

          There's going to be a conflict between party loyalists, Obama loyalists, and the reformers. I never thought our OWS Fall of Love would last forever. And as the election approaches, the loyalists will get pushier.They will expect OWS to rally around Obama. Because he's so super special and all. And Michelle Bachman is the greatest threat facing humanity since the dinosaurs ate an asteroid.

          So the infinite argument will resume. "If I just rephrase this argument one more time I know they'll finally get it."

          lol. Here's a fucking clue. If Obama had done what he said he was going to do, and actually tried to change something - OWS wouldn't have even happened. It wouldn't have been necessary.

          Or another way of looking at it. All that rage and discontent that is driving OWS and its widespread support among the public? That was the same discontent that Obama rode to the White House. And he pissed on it the day he was sworn in. I mean in one speech, the "fierce urgency of now" turned into this phony, Bill Clinton retread sell out show. It's infuriating.

          Now just imagine if Obama had really been on our side, and harnessed that rage for good.  Instead of being on Larry Summers' side. Goldman Sachs side. We could have changed the world.

          We may have even been able to snag the holy grail: passing a constitutional amendment outlawing ever giving money to a political candidate or officeholder.

          But if Obama had really been on our side, he wouldn't have gotten elected now would he? That's because the People don't hold elections. The 1% media does. And we are all just spectators. And that's why most people in this pathetic country don't even bother to vote.

          And why should they? No matter how the election turns out, Wall Street will win.

          •  interesting argument n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Knarfc, Matt Z
          •  I don't know where you live... (40+ / 0-)

            ...but I'm betting it's not a state with a newly-minted Tea Party Republican governor and legislature.

            If you lived in a place wholly controlled by Republicans, and were paying attention at all to what was going on your state's legislature, you wouldn't be saying...

            Electing more Democrats hasn't changed the rightward direction of this country one tiny bit

            ...with a straight face. Have you watched, or even read about, any of the Republican presidential primary debates? Do you honestly believe this country would be no worse off if one of them became president than it has been under Obama? Honestly?

            I do not wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to President Obama. Yes, he has disappointed me on many occasions. But to say he "hasn't changed the rightward direction of this country one tiny bit" is to betray a dangerous level of ignorance about just how far to the right the current GOP wants to take us.

            Totally disengaging from the electoral process is exactly what the ultra-right wants us to do - why do you think they're passing laws all over the country to make it harder for progressive voting blocs to vote? By all means work to change the system. I'm with you all the way. But the system will not be changed before next November's elections. And until it is, we have to hold what little ground we gained with Obama's election.

            I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

            by ObamOcala on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:48:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I live in Tennessee (11+ / 0-)

              So, nice try. We're actually planning to move just to escape the TeaTard idiocy here.

              But why shouldn't the Republicans be all the can be? It's not like anyone in the opposing party is going to call them on it. There's no counter attack by the Demorats. No one out there explaining to the American people why right wing policies are a disaster and why progressive policies are smart and effective.

              And you speak to me of ignorance. Do you even know why there are no progressive voices in the Democratic party articulating the progressive vision and philosophy of people like FDR and Kennedy that created the comparatively golden years of the past?

              Is it because the Republicans have their tongues? No. It's because they aren't even Democrats. The oligarchs have just figured out they can loot this country a lot faster by creating the illusion of choice.

              Obama came into office when everything the American right wing believes in lay smashed on the floor in little pieces.

              Their entire ideology, completely invalidated. Even Alan Greenspan, with his psychotically monumental ego, admitted that his economic model was deeply flawed. That same world view he and all the other little technopaths have been pushing on us for decades.

              What an opportunity to have a Democrat take the White House. Someone who can seize the moment and talk to the American people about the severe limits of markets to create a just and prosperous society.

              But what did we get from Obama and the Democrats? Lies. Obfuscations. And criticisms of Republicans being obstructionists. (Some pollsters told Obama that the people really want more centrism and intr-party cooperation.)

              By lies and obfuscations, I mean when Obama, Summers, and Geithner came up with this scheme to allow all the failed megabanks to doctor their books with fraudulent values for their junk assets.

              And to help facilitate the con, Obama, Summers, Geithner  and Bernake started funneling freshly printed trillions secretly into the banksters' coffers.

              Instead of the rare, teachable moment opportunity to expose and clean out the rot and corruption of our financial sector, and simultaneously expose the sociopathic ideology of the right for the utter disaster that it is, we got silence. Tax cuts, fake health reform, and the complete whitewashing of what really happened on Wall Street that led to the crash of 2008 and now the near collapse of the entire global banking cartel.

              Oh I know what the oligarchs and their stooges in both parties are up to. Do you?

              •  You make some legitimate points (6+ / 0-)

                but I think it's disingenuous to just discount the Republican obstructionism as just "criticisms," especially when there was a record number of filibusters in this administration.

                •  I think James makes a bad argument (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chrismorgan

                  Note his word choice for argumentation:

                  stooges
                  "fake" health reform
                  the "con"
                  "funneling money" (instead of "loans") -- thereby equating it to TARP and what Paulson did in 2008.
                  lies
                  obfuscations

                  And on and on.

                  All words to elicit emotional response, not intellectual response.  No coalition building or analysis to find a solution to a common problem.

                  Not much to see here.

                  •  Yep, very trollish language. Hopefully its not in- (0+ / 0-)

                    tentional and is merely a reflection of the sad tendency of some to some times think in terms of only black and white when then world is so often various shades of grey.

                    IMO the idea that BO and Ds are 'just like" Thugs is factually absurd and self-defeating and the notion that you can change the political economy of a country by other than political means is as niave as thinking you can do it in one election (or one decade, for that matter).

                    BTW, if you think the Ds and Rs are the same, ask yourself why the Thugs are busy limiting who can vote and when?

                  •  How do you define coalition building? (0+ / 0-)

                    What is your analysis of the current 'gridlock' situation? Do you think that Republicans, in their current composition, are even able and willing to negotiate in good faith?

            •  we've (0+ / 0-)

              been voting for Democrats, and for 30 years, everything keeps marching rightward.

              how is more of the same going to fix that?

              •  How is a GOP victory going to fix anything? (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Supavash, sunbro, TheLizardKing, Matt Z, elwior
                •  the ONLY (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Duke1676, James Kresnik

                  chance I see is if we either move the overton window to the left, or the Dems get scared of the left's ability to keep them from power.

                  either one seems to require that the left be willing to let the Dems lose elections from time to time (which would happen anyways, btw).

                  Now, I think both are long-shots to work. But they are the ONLY options that I see. Rewarding Dems for continually moving to the right will only keep them moving to the right.

                  •  This makes ZERO sense man! You want us to lose (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Matt Z, fcvaguy, elwior

                    just to teach Dems a lesson? Seriously? ZERO sense!

                  •  And when the GOP (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kefauver, Matt Z, fcvaguy, elwior, chrismorgan

                    wins at the ballot box with their punish-the-poor-to-serve-the-rich message, and then alters voting rules to ensure a permanent majority, will you volunteer to be the first one to lose his job, his home, his family?

                    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                    by raptavio on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:53:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no (0+ / 0-)

                      as stated above:

                      a) the dems will win some elections and lose some elections (i.e. they will not stay in power forever), thus electing dems just delays the GOP from getting to power, rather than preventing it

                      •  I'm in it to win it. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fcvaguy, elwior

                        I'm all for staving off the GOP advance until they reorganize as something far more sane than their current incarnation.

                        Parties ebb and flow in and out of power. But parties' platforms also change over time.

                        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                        by raptavio on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:02:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  basically, (3+ / 0-)

                          though, if somebody is trying to tell me that should the GOP come to power, they will forever be in power and i'll be thrown into a gulag, ...then, well, that's going to happen anyways, because they will come back into power at some point.

                          so it's useless to try to scare me with that.

                          I agree that in a vacuum, I'd rather have the dems win than the GOP, of course.

                          the problem is, that gives us zero chance of things getting better in the long run, if we just keep rewarding the dems for moving to the right. the status quo is unacceptable, and I'm not going to continue helping it along.

                          •  ya, we get it (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            elwior, raptavio, kalmoth, chrismorgan, doroma

                            You just want to teach them a lesson.

                            At my expense, and millions of others.

                          •  no (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splintersawry

                            we need them to learn that lesson or many millions of Americans will continue to suffer not jsut for teh next 4 years, but into the foreseeable future.

                            but can SOMEBODY please tell me how we can reverse this trend without forcing dems to fear us not voting for them.

                            I keep asking over and over and over, and nobody can give me a path forward, even though they bash my plan.

                          •  Politics is a contact sport (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth, doroma

                            when your team is getting its kicked on the field, you don't walk off the field because you think the calls being played are all wrong.

                            I don't know where you live, but I grew up and lived in New England for years. It sucked being a fan of just about every New England sports team; the Celtics, the Red Sox, and the Patriots. But, their fans hung in there with them for years. Then lo and behold came the 90s and in the course of a few years, they won the Stanley Cup, the Super Bowl, and the World Series. Imagine that.

                          •  This invovles lives. This isn't a fucking game. (0+ / 0-)

                            This isn't a spectator sport. This is serious business, and you're about to see how serious this will all get.

                          •  We were talking about voting vs not voting (0+ / 0-)

                            You're right. voting isn't a game. But, some seem to think it is and thats precisely why I made my point in those terms.

                            nd you're about to see how serious this will all get.

                            care to elaborate?

                    •  If we've gotten to the point (0+ / 0-)

                      where that's the best we can do, engaging in politics is a dead and pointless exercise and you should try something else. You can't keep your finger in the dike forever.

                  •  Ridiculous (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    elwior, kalmoth

                    If thats the only two options you see, then you need to explore more options. Because, those options aren't going to fly here. Making Dems lose is masochism to the max.

                    You'll end up feeling smug that you got yours against the party that fell short of your personal expectations. But, millions will suffer.

                    Guess what? Voting isn't a selfish act, its a selfless act. When you're in the voting booth, you don't vote for yourself, you vote for whats best for your country, all Americans.

                    •  as I said a few comments up (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      James Kresnik
                      I really am open to any other ways forward you see.  

                      I do not like that I think it's come to this. If there's a less painful way, then please let me know.

                      you claim that there are other solutions.

                      well, what are they?

                    •  and (0+ / 0-)

                      I think it is selfish to only think about the next election, to the detriment of the country longer-term.

                      •  Yesterday (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kalmoth

                        We saw Republicans come up with their proposal to extend the payroll tax cut - the tax cut that puts $1500 in the 99%'s pockets. $1500 buys a lot of groceries.

                        What was their plan to pay for it? Freeze government worker salaries. And, that comes on the heels of them being frozen for the past 2 years. And....

                        Lay off 200,000 government workers.

                        That's the kind of thing we're faced if Republicans take control of this government. We will be fucked. But, you'll get to feel good about your vote. Hopefully, you'll still be able to sleep at night. I wouldn't be able to.

                        •  what don't you (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          James Kresnik

                          get about "republicans will win elections from time to time anyways"?

                          do you understand what that means? if we ensure that the dems don't fix the problems, then they will just be made worse whenever the republicans win anyways, and the dems will continue not fixing things.

                          we are completely, utterly screwed to be dominated by republican policies if we don't force the dems to reverse them when they get into power.

                          yours is a recipe for disaster, not just for the next 4 years, but for the foreseeable future after that.

                          •  I'm not willing to put important stuff at risk (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth

                            Just a few:

                            Help for the unemployed.
                            Protection of a woman's right to choose (If the SCOTUS was willing to give personhood to corporations, what makes you think they'd blink twice about giving it to a fetus?)
                            Protection of the recent gains made by the LGBT community.
                            Voting Rights - Just this past year alone we've seen a tsunami of tea-party sponsored restrictions on voting rights. They DON'T WANT YOU TO VOTE.
                            Stopping the assault on the right for workers to organize.

                            Just look a the damage Republicans have been able to wage in less than one year. Imagine if they had 4. I cringe.

                          •  add supreme court n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fcvaguy
                  •  the choice you see... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    chrismorgan

                    is false.

                •  That is not an answer to the question (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  triv33

                  Let's hear an honest answer to the question.

                  •  That was my honest answer to his question, joanne. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fcvaguy

                    His response to my answer was extremely ridiculous.

                    •  ok then (0+ / 0-)

                      are you saying we should give up because we can't do anything to stop the downward slide?

                      I'm not at the point of believing that yet.

                      •  It's OK to want to stop the "downward slide". (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Matt Z, elwior, Plubius, James Kresnik

                        Not voting for Dems will not stop the slide. It will in fact help land Republicans in the WH, senate and the House. That, my friend, will escalate the "downward slide".

                        •  i've addressed this (0+ / 0-)

                          you are probably correct that it wouldn't work. it certainly won't; int he short term, and it only has a small chance of working in the long term.

                          but continuing to be automatic votes for the Dems certainly won't work either.

                          so I'm forced to take the small chance instead of the zero chance.

                          If you have any other ideas, I'm open to hearing them.

                          •  change the society and you change the country (0+ / 0-)

                            and its direction.

                            But it's a long, hard slog, lots of work, not very sexy, not likely conducive to wearing masks, requires one-on-one or one to a few contact, means hanging out in living rooms and church basements, caring about the school boards and the city councilpersons, talking to neighbors, living ones principles, giving people something to believe in and to work for, preparing for setbacks, taking the streets one by one,  and having plans and goals that stretch years and decades down the road.

                            Republicans have not only long mastered a good portion of this process, when they are in control they've also mastered slapping down the incipient, and even-long standing left/liberal efforts at doing the same, pushing them a few steps back. But then the hard-core start all over again and even gain a few steps under more friendly administrations (local and national), until the next time.

                            Only by learning to live in harmony with your contradictions can you keep it all afloat. --Audre Lorde

                            by Nanette K on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:35:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i agree (0+ / 0-)

                            but that's why we can't tolerate democrats that further republican talking points, etc.  when dems themselves shift the overton window to the right, it does real damage to the country long-term.

                  •  Don't insinuate his answer was dishonest (0+ / 0-)

                    with your crappy innuendo.

          •  Where are your numbers? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fcvaguy

            The latest public support number I saw on Kos was 33% and trending down. Do you have some new stats?

        •  I agree, but I don't mind (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisePiper, Matt Z

          doing an action or two that highlights the corrupt nature of Congress in relation to the crony capitalists who have bought them--given the draconian and terrible legislation they've just brought forward (thank you, Carl Levin and Patrick Leahy!).

          My favorite ideas for OWS:

          1)continue with the "move your money" campaign. Spread it to churches, cities. etc.

          2)foreclosure defense

          3)use color of title to "occupy" vacant, foreclosed-on properties whose titles have been lost/cannot be established, and fix 'em up.  Create neighborhoods in the wasteland. (BUT first ask whoever is still holding on to their homes in those neighborhoods if it's OK with them, and give them veto power/a say in what happens subsequently. We don't want to become the White Kid Gentrification Force.)

          Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:35:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The focus must remain solely on Congress because (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          that's where the power is.  

          Occupy trying to directly prevent foreclosures is good, "one starfish at a time" stuff, but does nothing to change the system or prevent the corruption.  

          Yes, foreclosures are unfair and often illegally done - but that's why OWS already exists:  we knew that already.  That's why OWS is physically there, on a family's front lawn.

          We have a representative system of Democracy, thus we need to focus precisely and solely on getting the wrong representatives, of both parties, out; and the right type of representative (Warren, Sanders) in.

          Period.  

          The only way we "change the system", is to do precisely that.

          Get our preferred representatives elected to the power positions.   Have them institute policies that get money out of politics, halt illegal foreclosures, make financial lobbying illegal, vote in healthcare for all, etc.

          One single, direct focus, addressed to every single candidate from local dogcatcher to President that we will elect in this next election, and beyond:   I don't care what party you belong to, what you say.  I want to see what you do: who do you work for?

            And it better be us.

          We can, and should, spend these next 11 months highlighting every decision every single elected official has ever made, where they chose the 1% over us.  And get them out of power.

          Occupy The Voting Booth - vote for candidates that represent your Occupy values.

          by mumtaznepal on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:54:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is the most workable plan (0+ / 0-)

            I've seen so far.

            Thom Hartmann has extensively covered the Concord Project, which is how the tea party commandeered the GOP - by targeting the precinct committeeman seats in every district in America.

            With winter setting in, I'd like to see the newly awakened public coming indoors and choosing helpful tasks to work on, such as the idea about calling out voting records mentioned above.  

            A Google search for "become precinct committeeman" yields a crapload of results -- 195,000, to be precise. The links are full of plug and play, how-to, for-dummies, step by step instructions -- for the GOP.  I went through a good number of pages without finding any info on how to infiltrate the Dems.

            As we say at the fire department, many hands make quick work.  They have the upper hand because they've done all their legwork and have their methodology completely doped out.

            Why not make our own un-Grover line-in-the-sand pledge?  Will you vote for significant campaign finance reform?  If no, don't call us, we'll call you. Then hold them accountable.

            Continue mic checking everyone who needs to STFU.  Make them either work for us in real life, or run and hide like Eric Cantor.  Let them fear the flash mob.

            To say that OWS is losing ground because polls say so, well that may be factual.  But we don't live in a static world, and for Frank Luntz to get up and say OWS scares the crap out of him?  Hard to argue that it's failing.  Especially when you consider the pathetic counterpoints he came up with.

            Speaking of which, another helpful indoor task for the winter is taking Luntz's hard work and using it for free.  He's already identified exactly what we need to do, and the 1% has paid the tab for the focus groups.  Can we focus on getting people who've never heard of DK onto the same page?  Or shall we quibble about whether we're liberal or progressive?

            Personally I think framing the battle as People v. Corporations will be a winner.  It's bumper sticker-able, and I do believe it's a no-brainer.  We have a lot of fired-up people right now, and almost a year to put boots up asses.

            By the way, I like the word progressive.  That's what I want. Progress.  If you think that makes me a big pussy, well, I don't give a shit.  I'm not scared of them or you.

            FF Xavier Onassis, EMT-P

        •  not necessarily (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, elwior, James Kresnik

          why should there only be one focus? There are a myriad of problems, perhaps the focus should be multi-pronged?

          "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

          by valadon on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:57:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Jesse is a hell of a lot closer (29+ / 0-)

        to speaking for the actual 99% than the radical faction of the OWS.

        As OWS descends into leftist fantasy and Obama-bashing, the slogan "We are the 99%" is increasingly ridiculous.

        If OWS is the 99% then Bud actually is the King of Beers.

        History is won by the writers.

        by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:42:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm going to vote for him again, but (7+ / 0-)

          I won't be happy or particularly hopeful.  I was as excited as anyone.  Then a few appalling surrenders to the gop house,  painful but I was still pretty high on the president.

          Watching the documentary Inside Job,  I realized that every single person Obama has put in charge of aspects of the economy-  every one of them-  should be in prison.  Along with a few of their Bush predecessors like Greenspan and Paulson.  In particular,  watching film of their public statements and congressional testimony,  I realized that Obama really has no space in between him and the crash of 2008 ideas.  

          If he ever had any reformist or regulatory ideas, he surrendered them sometime before he made his cabinet appointments.  I should mention by name Summers,  and Geitner,  and Bernacke.  This regime of secret payment of public funds to benefit reckless financial wheeler dealers has continued,  very much in evidence just yesterday.

          So.  In defense of the lack of party loyalty sometimes evident in OWS,  we should be a little humble, a little open minded.   A large part of their focus is systemic economic injustice.  And so far,  in this area,  our president and our party have been incredibly ineffective.  

          It may require a change that hasn't come before.

          by RedBlueNoMore on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:18:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry, (9+ / 0-)

            but it is OWS that needs to start being humble.  It claims to speak for the 99% and yet engages in protest disruption tactics that are little more than juvenile pranks that piss people off.  If they intend to speak for the 99% then they better stop with the Revolution Cosplay and get a program.

            History is won by the writers.

            by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:24:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Revolution Cosplay" (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              journeyman, Supavash, Matt Z

              Luv it!

            •  You know what's juvenile? (9+ / 0-)

              your Revolution Cosplay comment.  Witty, but juvenile.  

              I say that OWS HAS had a program, will continue to have a program, and will become an increasinly positively influence on the dialogue in this country and around the world.

              •  I'm sorry, but you are wrong. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sunbro, boophus, kat68, Matt Z

                The remark was cutting to be sure.  It was meant to be.  But it was also accurate.

                It is literally true.

                There are OWS protestors running around it Guy Fawkes masks in conscious imitation of the Comic Book and Wachowski Brother Superhero V.

                Moreover, these people are not the fringe.  They are prominent enough that they used the image when they decided to attack President Obama last night.

                Some may argue that I am reading too much into what is only supposed to be a symbol of revolution, but think about that for a minute.  These people had the opportunity to choose a symbol for their movement and they decided that a comic book superhero would be just the thing.

                That's going to really go over with the 99% -- like a lead balloon.

                Moreover, you assert that they have a program, well then please tell me what it is.

                Oh and "establishing economic justice" is no more a program than "eradicating disease".  You need concrete proposals.

                Instead we get flash mobs, topless demonstrations, camp outs and, yes, cosplay.

                The radicals in OWS are giving a good cause a bad name and if they don't get their acts together or if the rest of the folks in OWS don't get them under control they are going to make substantive change harder to achieve.

                At the end of the day the hippies brought us Nixon.

                I'm genuinely afraid that OWS just might bring us Gingrich.

                History is won by the writers.

                by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:34:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Anecdotal evidence does not make literal truth (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KenBee, James Kresnik

                  Many of the specific protest actions of OWS have been creative, effective, well-focused, and certainly not juvenile.

                  The OWS program (to me, and only thus far) is to raise a voice against rampant economic injustice.  

                  There's no requirement that any "program" be a set of concrete proposals.  You can hold that opinion, but it is only an opinion based on your own chosen definition.

                  So, I say they DO have a program.

                  •  Yes and every week the Old Time Gospel Hour (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Plubius, Matt Z

                    used to raise its voice against "evil".

                    Fat lot of good that did the world.

                    Of course, my analogy is somewhat of the mark here.

                    Falwell at least had a program and he was reasonably effective in implementing it.

                    You can say they have a program all you want.  God knows they've been saying it since this started.

                    That doesn't make it true.

                    In my experience a program has concrete, discrete, realizable goals.

                    There is also a phrase for what you have described.

                    That word is "pipe dream".

                    History is won by the writers.

                    by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:36:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The hippies brought us Nixon? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Kresnik

                  I'd say the Vietnam War brought us Nixon.  Incidentally, he campaigned on getting us out of of Vietnam, perhaps that's why he won?

                  I'd also say you take a bit too much joy in bashing hippies.

                  OWS alone will not bring us Gingrich.  Right now today, it's just as likely OWS will save us from Gingrich.  Perhaps, by shining their spotlight on the financial and political corruption he represents so well.  Just a thought...

                •  I agree. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  journeyman, Matt Z

                  I agree ONE BAZILLION %.

                  So much incredible awesome energy and rage WASTED.

              •  I hope you're right. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sunbro, journeyman, Matt Z

                But I'm also not foolish enough to think that the "revolution cosplay" line is not without merit.

                Most Occupiers do not fit that bill, but a loud and media-seeking minority surely do.

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:34:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  It does not claim to speak (7+ / 0-)

              for the 99% it claims to speak about the 99%.

              When they say "we are the 99%" they realize that not everyone in the 99% agrees with them.  They realize that a significant portion of the 99% votes against their own best interest and works against their own best interest.  They try to persuade and inform the rest of the 99%.

            •  Funny (0+ / 0-)

              How a lot of what you say is very similar to the right wing talking points.

        •  Well said. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          journeyman

          Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

          by JTinDC on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:24:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  30 percent of Americans (18+ / 0-)

          are Democrats. When you speak like a Democratic partisan, you speak for that many people. When you articulate liberal-left principles and articulate a class critique, you speak for a strong majority of Americans.

          •  Revolutionary Millenariansm (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Plubius, Matt Z

            is not a "liberal-left" principle.  It is an extreme left-wing fantasy.

            History is won by the writers.

            by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:46:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Eh, OWS activists and supporters (11+ / 0-)

              are the realists. They're the ones fighting against, you know, the destruction of the economy and the the planet. The fantasists and utoptianists are in charge -- the neoliberal globalists who're destroying the world.

              The neoliberalism of our elites, including President Obama, has failed.

              The Occupy movements have been attacked for being impractical visionaries. In fact it is the established political classes of the west that are wedded to utopian thinking, while the protesters are recalling us to the actualities of human experience. Based on economic theories that left out human beings, the global free market was supposed to be self-regulating. Now a process of disintegration is under way, in which the structures set up in the post-cold-war period are visibly breaking up.

              Anyone with a smattering of history could see that the hubristic capitalism of the past 20 years was programmed to self-destruct. The notion that the world's disparate societies could be corralled into a worldwide free market was always a dangerous fantasy. Opening up economies throughout the world meant ordinary people were more directly exposed to the gyrations of market forces than they had been for generations. As it overthrew existing patterns of life and robbed large numbers of people of any security they might have achieved, global capitalism was bound to trigger a powerful blowback.

              For as long as it was able to engineer an illusion of increasing prosperity, free-market globalisation was politically invulnerable. When the bubble burst, the actual condition of the majority was laid bare. In the US a plantation-style economy has come into being, with debt-servitude for the many coexisting with extremes of volatile wealth for the few. In Europe the muddled dream of a single currency has resulted in social devastation in Greece, mass unemployment in Spain and other countries, and even, for some, reversion to a life based on barter: sucking society into a vortex of debt deflation, austerity policies are driving a kind of reverse economic development. In many countries a settled bourgeois existence – supposedly the basis of popular capitalism – has become an impossible aspiration. Large numbers are edging closer to poverty and a life without hope.

              •  You can argue that all you want. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Plubius, TheLizardKing, Matt Z

                You have been arguing it for quite some time.  But the fact is that the 99% doesn't agree with you.  It doesn't even come close.

                Realists do not adopt doomed tactics that have no hope of preventing the problems they see coming.

                Revolutionary millenarianism is a fantasy of the extreme left and it has no chance for success as an ideology of appeal.  It will only serve to alienate the very people that it most needs as allies.

                Americans are not interested in a vanguard party of intellectuals raising their consciousness.  By and large they think that's a insulting and contemptuous conceit of arrogant eggheads.

                History is won by the writers.

                by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:09:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  some americans are just interested in bread and... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joanneleon

                  circuses, until the bread stops coming.  when they can't afford the bread anymore and the 1% says, "gosh, too bad, we have to cut off your bread you lazy slackers," then traditionally is when the folks you're talking about start to pay attention to the people that they used to think of as arrogant eggheads who disrupted their enjoyment of titillation and beer.

                  once they get to know us, they become quick studies, too.  that's why the powers that be hustled out the men with guns to attempt to shut down the movement.  it really wasn't about people trampling the grass or sleeping outdoors - that stuff happens all the time and homeless folks are mostly paid attention to by enforcement authorities when they become unsightly and negatively affect commerce.

                  i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                  by joe shikspack on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:31:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Traditionally"? (0+ / 0-)

                    Like, when exactly?

                    No really, when?

                    History is won by the writers.

                    by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:35:46 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  see the history of the rise of leftist unions (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joanneleon

                      you will find countless stories of anarchists, socialists and communist movements inside and outside of the union movement and especially during the great depression.  or for example, check out the careers of huey long and his "share the wealth movement" or eugene v. debs.

                      i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                      by joe shikspack on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:14:35 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If I recall correctly (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Matt Z

                        Long was assassinated and Debs (however unjustly) jailed while the rest of the country yawned.

                        You asserted the following:

                        once they get to know us, they become quick studies, too.

                        In my mind this implies that the vast majority of the populace suddenly jumped on board to make the movement a success.

                        To demonstrate your point you chose two spectacular failures.

                        And the 99% should back you, um, why exactly?

                        I sort of lost the thread of logic in your argument there.

                        Although, I'll have to ask you to forgive me for saying it, but the thread was mighty thin indeed.

                        History is won by the writers.

                        by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:30:01 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  these were very big movements... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          joanneleon

                          the system ultimately protected itself by a two track process, first, less than savory attacks on leftist followed by persecution of the leaders and second, economic concessions to the vast multitudes.  you might remember that fdr ran for his first term on a platform of austerity?  he wound up buying off the public with public works programs and a social safety net, because huey long and his ilk were gaining an uncomfortable level of popularity.

                          i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                          by joe shikspack on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:09:45 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  "realists" - oh, you mean "pragmatists". (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  orestes1963, joanneleon, Annalize5

                  This is just run-of-the-mill apologist rhetoric.  It's hard to believe that MOT, being a very visible OWS spokesman, would want to venture into this landmine - and of all things, himself, bring politics into this.

              •  "fighting against the ..destruction of the planet" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                journeyman, Matt Z

                Yes, yes, this isn't millenarinism at all.

                Not in the least.

        •  Top Comment. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          llbear, journeyman, Matt Z
          If OWS is the 99% then Bud actually is the King of Beers.

          If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? - Psalms 11:3

          by SpamNunn on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:02:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  GOP memo "Occupy Obama" (38+ / 0-)

        http://www.gop.com/...

        It's one thing to demand accountability, but turning into the GOP's useful idiots is quite another.

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

        by Geekesque on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:43:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But then - (5+ / 0-)
        I don't presume to speak for OWS, but the movement is manifestly a more radical (no, not moderate) uprising that is aiming higher and digging deeper than

        You really can't frame it as a movement for the '99%' -- simply because 99% isn't radical or interested in being radical... and I'm not sure some subset of the 99% making some ethereal decision about 'knowing what's best for you' is a good path, either, for a variety of reasons.

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:46:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well "more" radical (6+ / 0-)

          Not necessarily radical in the sense of ushering in a Peter Kropotkin paradise, but more radical than the standard tribal two-party, haul-ourselves-off-to-the-voting-booth-and-hold-our-noses-every-so-often racket.

          The core of OWS, it's been well established, is divided between radicals of anarchist bent and Social Democrat-style reformers, but even the most moderate among them want to alter the system at its core. And one of its great assets -- not only moral assets but political assets -- is that it stands apart from and is willing to go after both parties. After all, almost 50 percent of eligible voters don't vote in presidential elections, and political independents significantly out number Democrats or Republicans. The day the movement aligns itself with the Democratic Party is the day it dies.

          •  The people I have met at OColumbia (4+ / 0-)

            don't want to "alter the system to its core".  They want laws written and enforced to level the playing field again.  Only 1 wants to throw away democracy, and he is a self-admitted anarchist.

            So, I don't know where you're getting your info, but that kind of thing is what keeps OWS from getting even more support.

            •  Throw away democracy? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TimmyB

              Where'd you get that? This is about restoring it, or perhaps creating it.

              Obviously, this movement contains people of varied beliefs, but every person deeply involved in the movement who've I spoke to or read about believes there are systemic problems that requires systemic solutions. Some want to replace capitalism, others want to reform it, but no one think we can do what needs to be done through conventional electoral means, and they're right.

        •  the idea to me is that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP, Pinto Pony, esquimaux

          the radicals represent the interests of the 99%, whether the 99% knows it or not.

          He who throws mud only loses ground -- Fat Albert

          by c0wfunk on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:22:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "I don't presume to speak for OWS" (5+ / 0-)

        Yes, you do.

      •  Typical. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Supavash, SwedishJewfish, Matt Z

        Yet another purity litmus test, now being played on MoT.

        Go right ahead and burn your bridges.

        "The bottom line is, we've got to wake up. We can't allow our disappointment in Obama to lull us into allowing a truly dangerous strain of conservative philosophy to gain any more traction than it already has." --ObamOcala 4/5/11

        by smoothnmellow on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:09:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmmm...you jumped real fast on to the thread to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        ...do some sort of a damage control, I presume?

        We must never, never, never stop "blaming Obama," right?

        Sheeesh!!!

        "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

        by zenox on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:34:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. "Democratic partisan" is a horrible thing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        to sound like, and such talk has NO place on this site!!!! /sarcasm

      •  Disagree David. (0+ / 0-)

        The movement is mainstream and should stay branded mainstream, otherwise the goals of liberating a middle class will not be achieved -- especially if we start fighting against the middle class -- or we are seen as something "other" than them.  You are pitting us against mainstream -- exactly who we are fighting for!

    •  Bravo to you-- (17+ / 0-)

      This reads like a recognition that among the 99%, there will be a wide variety of differences of opinion on specifics, tactics, strategy, and perhaps even larger means to an end in some cases.

      In larger movement, this is how I think things change for the better -- recognition of common ground and shared protection of it, rather than focusing on conflicted turf and fighting over those spaces instead.

      Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

      by zonk on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:43:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So what do we do about those (11+ / 0-)

      that interpret any criticism of the President as equivalent to GOP actions?

      Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

      by Horace Boothroyd III on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:48:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're wrong, and now I have to write a (0+ / 0-)

      diary explaining why.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:21:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  AMEN!!! n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      CCR:"If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going."

      by jimstaro on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:22:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  if we don't want to lose those people (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Curt Matlock

      then we need to learn how to message better/differently  I saw that around the Thanksgiving table. My daughter a college student who is facilitating the general assembly at her college explained to those kind of people what #OWS is about. Here she is
       http://daily.swarthmore.edu/...

      I'm in Montgomery County PA a Philly bedroom community that is going to decide the election in PA. Lots of those moderate voters .

    •  Can I just say... (12+ / 0-)

      THANK YOU!

      Pardon my French and my yelling but I AM SO MOTHERFUCKING GODDAMN SICK OF FIGHTING ABOUT OBAMA!!!!!

      Good LORD, this shit gets tedious. I had to take a 2 week hiatus from this site because I was so tired of this bullshit! And no, it is not because I'm a lock-steping syncophant Obama apologist who gets her widdle fee-fees hurt if you attack my beloved dear leader, or because I'm just to "scared" to acknoweldge the "ugly truth", it is because you guys have been arguing about this shit FOREVER! And it's the same goddamn tedious arguments all the time- WE GET IT! I, like most of the people here, follow politics like a religion. I know everything the man has done, good bad and ugly. Guess what? I still support him. You are not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. End of story. Yes, Obama has done some things (a lot of things) that have pissed me off. Obama is not perfect. Obama makes me mad sometimes. Yes, indeed, he does.

      But you know what REALLY makes me mad? The fact that thanks to the meltdown in 2008, my grandmother lost almost all of her life savings and we are now going to be forced to take her out of the beautiful retirement facility she has called home for the past 5 years and put her into a state run facility because that's what Medicaid will pay for. I'm angry that I got ripped off by a for-profit college that basically forced me to teach myself how to be a nurse for the price of $30,000, and is owned by one of the highest trading stocks on wall street. And now they loan companies are threatening to garnish my nonexistant wages.

      I'm also pissed off that things like wheat and corn and other staples of nutrition are treated like poker chips at a casino and people are starving right now just so some hedge fund managers can earn some dividends. I'm angry that the top 1% in this country saw their incomes rise by 278% (!!!) over the past 28 years, while the rest of us have stagnated. I'm pissed off that our corrupt supreme court decided that it's not perfectly legal to buy elections, but public campaign financing is unconstitutional. I'm angry that 6 million children die of hunger-related diseases every year, despite the fact that we grow more than enough food to feed them, and that NGO's like the World Bank and the IMF have used their programs of "structural adjustment" and "shock therapy" under the guise of lifting developing nations out of poverty to enslave them in debt and create more poverty, starvation, stagnation and decline- all at their own profit. I am angry that 25% of our nations children live in poverty. I am angry that my child is one of them.

      So pardon me if I don't give a flying fuck if healthcare reform wasn't perfect or Obama killed Al Alwaki with a drone, or that his former chief of staff called you retarted, or that he isn't using his "bully pulpit" to your satisfaction. President Obama isn't everything I dreamed he would be. But he's doing pretty damn good, IMO, considering his circumstances. Whether you agree with that or not, I would hope that at the very least you could agree that we have much bigger issues at hand- issues that were in existence long before Obama became president, and issues that will be there long after he leaves. So YES, Jesse, your concerns are very cogent. Because if OWS starts moving into ODS territory, I'm done. And I think it will be a huge, huge waste of a very promising and powerful movement with the potential to change our country for the better.

      R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
      October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

      by SwedishJewfish on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:25:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So sorry, Jesse :( (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orestes1963
      I say that we should SHIFT FOCUS, away from the Presidency and over to Congress and Wall Street, the corrupt Houses of Boehner and Reid and the corporate boardrooms that bribe our politicians.

      Yes, we should protest fundraisers, all the fundraisers, including President Obama's, but we must be vigilant and make sure that we do not allow the GOP to co-opt OccupyWallStreet and turn it into a "blame Obama-fest", because that's exactly what Wall Street lobbyists would want.

      I just can't buy this.

      "...Boehner and Reid .." didn't choose this president's cabinet....blah, blah, blah.

      Been said and re-said and shredded and diced and sliced and re-purposed for years now. The story always has the same ending.  

      "Everybody knows" ~Leonard Cohen

    •  Exactamente! (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know why so many people didn't turn out for the Congressional elections in 2010. Hey, if they were upset with Obama, he wasn't on the &%$#! ballot! It was an election for CONGRESS, not the president. OWS needs to run people for CONGRESS, the way the Tea Party did.

      RUN, JESSE, RUN! I'll help fund you!

  •  The buck stops at the President's desk (21+ / 0-)

    Geithner. Bernanke. They were appointed by and work for the President. Or more precisely, they work for the 1%-ers who ponied up tens of thousands of dollars to hob-nob for a few moments with the President in Manhattan the other night. But it all comes back to the President. If he wanted to put an end to the bailouts on Wall Street and start working for the 99%, he could. But he chooses not to. Repeatedly.

    If you want OWS to become just another partisan hack organization, then by all means "shift the focus" away from the President. If you want to be taken seriously by the American people as an organization with some principles and integrity, then you had better hold everyone responsible for the current situation accountable for their actions, and that begins with the President, by far the person most responsible.

    •  "By far the person most responsible?!?" (49+ / 0-)

      Ah, no. That would be the banksters. Obama walked into the middle of all this, how can he be the most responsible? If OWS focuses on Obama as the cause, not only would it be wrong, and stupid, it would turn OWS into just another partisan hack organization.

      The blame does not begin with the president. That's partisan hackery right there.

    •  That's why we need more immigration (0+ / 0-)

      By importing more immigrants, they will vote progressive and then more progressive policies will be implemented.

      And immigrants help our economy.  Witness the vast swaths of rotting crops in Alabama because they passed their extreme anti-immigration laws.

    •  I Am Not As Down On Obama As Most (29+ / 0-)

      but Geithner and Bernanke is troublesome.

      When Obama was picking his staff after the election I made a mistake I think. I assumed Obama wanted folks that knew how Wall Street worked cause, well they worked in the "belly of the beast." And Obama would be strong enough to convey his vision and let them implement it.

      I now think they, along with a lot of other Wall Street aides, have moved Obama in their direction and not the other way around.

      Again, I find this troubling.

      When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

      by webranding on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:23:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see the evidence for this: (14+ / 0-)
        I now think they, along with a lot of other Wall Street aides, have moved Obama in their direction and not the other way around.

        Obviously Obama has made mistakes in relation to the financial crisis; chief among them, to my mind, is the poor design and implementation of HAMP.

        But what specifically has Obama done that makes you think he has moved philosophically toward Wall St.?

        IMO, Geithner and Bernanke are not the sops for Wall Street that progressives make them out to be. Neither of them were Wall Street bankers, unlike Paulsen. They are just institutional reserve bankers.

        I think they prioritize stabilizing the financial markets, and if you consider that as their motivation, it explains pretty much everything they have done.

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

        by tomjones on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:35:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  $7.7 Trillion In Money With Almost (12+ / 0-)

          no strings attached.

          When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

          by webranding on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:37:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  According to Bloomberg (0+ / 0-)

            that lending, by the Federal Reserve mind you, ended in 3/09. And the Federal Reserve is independent of White House meddling.

            You could make the case that Obama endorsed it, perhaps, when he reappointed Bernanke. But to say that he was responsible for it happening in the first place is a willful distortion of history.

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

            by tomjones on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:03:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  In loans, that were repaid. eom (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z

            The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -FDR

            by SoCalSal on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:29:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  There were "strings attached". (0+ / 0-)

            Namely, if you don't pay back the money, you go out of business.  The money has been paid back, so the outrage over making the loans, to me, seems ... well, lame (that's the best word to sum it up). Actually "manufactured" and "disingenuous" also come to mind.

        •  And thee's the problem right there: (4+ / 0-)

          "I think they prioritize stabilizing the financial markets, and if you consider that as their motivation, it explains pretty much everything they have done."

          They see a strong financial sector as an ultimate good, as equivalent to a strong national economy, an end unto itself.  They put that above jobs.  They see no need to break up the banks and re-regulate them.

          With all this manure around, there must be a pony in here somewhere. - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

          by jrooth on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:14:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is a worthy debate to have (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound

            And I think having that debate would actually get us somewhere - perhaps even persuade some people!

            Unlike the overly simplistic, divisive conclusions that Geithner, Bernanke, et al. are "tools of the banks" or "Wall St. whores."

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

            by tomjones on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:05:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Geithner rejected nationalization of banks in favo (0+ / 0-)

          of the less drastic tactic of stress tests, and the "true progressives" will never forgive him for that.  That's basically what it comes down to.  The idea that Geithner, a life-long civil servant, and life-long Democrat, is some evil svengali for the 1% is absurd and stupid, but it's a myth that won't die amongst those that have a great desire to believe it.

    •  You misunderstand, I AGREE with you (33+ / 0-)

      I am one of Obama's biggest critics, thanks for allowing me to vent.

      FIRE Geithner
      DEMAND Clinton Era Tax rates on the rich
      DEMAND a bill overturning Citizens United

      And this is just a start.

      I don't want to hear Dems on the campaign promise platitudes. I want real action, I want them not only to put up a fight for normal working class people and the non-millionaire crown, I want someone to fight like hell, peacefully, but with hellfire in their eyes, because that is how much this matters to me. I recognize that the GOP is NOT my ally in this fight, fine, but I have to pressure the Dems to reveal whether they are my allies or not.

      #OccupyWallStreet ~ I will protest when and where I damn well please. I have the constitution in my pocket. That is my permit.

      by MinistryOfTruth on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:24:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, you do . . . (10+ / 0-)

        . . . and the first Dem who needs to be "pressured into revealing whether they are your allie or not" is the freaking President.

      •  Othern than firing Geithner (19+ / 0-)

        Obama supports those issues.

        Remember when he dressed down SCOTUS on Citizens United at the State of the Union?

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

        by tomjones on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:37:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, what? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tool

          Has he agitated the American public to organize against CU? What has he ever done to end corporate personhood?

          Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but Obama has never even mentioned ALEC, in public, much less verbally assaulted them in a way that would ensure that most Americans knew about ALEC.  Considering that most known legislative affiliates are Republicans, and by a wide margin, at that, what does Obama's omerta tell you about where his sympathies really lie?

          These are not hard questions to give reasonable answers to.

      •  ** Sigh.** (11+ / 0-)

        Not going to happen.

        Congress is not going to be "pressured" by Occupy.  Nor is the Democratic Party going to be "pressured" by Occupy.

        Wednesday morning this week the Mayor of Los Angeles sent 1300 cops out after 200 protesters in the tent city of Occupy LA.  The political class of the 1% is fully confident it can ignore you, and us.  We have not given them evidence to behave otherwise.

        Our only advantage is that we have a movement that listens to the voices of the people -- individual, divided, idiosyncratic voices.  And we act, through consensus process, on these voices as if they mattered.  As people slowly wake up to the fact that government is NOT going to be pressured by them, and that government IS going to do what it wants regardless of what the people think or do, then Occupy will grow because Occupy listens to them.  Eventually Occupy becomes the real government because the political class loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

        But the idea that you, or we, are going to pressure Congress or the Democrats is just pie-in-the-sky.  You're not.  We're not.  The movement is too small and divided right now.  It needs to grow a whole lot and sort out its differences through consensus process before it can be anything real, but it can do that -- it has the tools, whereas government by the 1% is autonomous, it resists pressure, it uses us as cannon fodder for its battles.  "Vote for the lesser of two evils," it says.  "Pay $10,000 to be heard by your Congressmember," it requires.

         If our government officials want to be "pressured" by us, moreover, they can join our general assemblies and get on the stacks.  Our process is real, theirs isn't.

        Jesse, please go back to the task of growing Occupy.  The popular notion that we have to make Occupy reflect "specific demands" has apparently gotten to you, and you are better off resisting it than in giving in.

        "But it ain't about who ya love, see it's all about do ya love," -Michael Franti

        by Cassiodorus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:56:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Totally disagree with your pessimism... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scioto, Tool

          ...Occupy has already succeeded in bringing income inequality to the forefront of political discourse in this country. And it has already succeeded in shifting politicians back toward the left, albeit slowly and in tiny increments. Witness the front page article on DKos today about some Republicans beginning to make tiny whimpers about maybe thinking about raising taxes on millionaires. Okay, they haven't actually done it yet. But if not for Occupy and the focus they have brought to the 99% vs. 1% struggle, even this small move would never have happened.

          The OWS genie is out of the bottle. The minions of the 1% can knock down tents, bust heads and throw people in jail, but they can't destroy OWS, nor can they prevent people from recognizing what's at stake.

          I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

          by ObamOcala on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:03:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You misread me as "pessimistic." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pot
            .Occupy has already succeeded in bringing income inequality to the forefront of political discourse in this country.

            So?  Congress just voted for ten years of austerity.  Did they go back on it?

            And it has already succeeded in shifting politicians back toward the left, albeit slowly and in tiny increments.

            No, it hasn't.  PR initiatives don't count.  No major "left" legislation has passed since Occupy begun, and none is going to pass.  

            Oh, and for the record I'm not pessimistic, though I am pessimistic about those who think that the success of Occupy is to be measured by how much it shifts the PR initiatives of the political class of the 1%.  

            "But it ain't about who ya love, see it's all about do ya love," -Michael Franti

            by Cassiodorus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:31:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you say you're not pessimistic (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              then you undermine two of Occupy's achievements, meeting the arguably biggest achievement so far with the response:  "So?"

              This feels very wet-blanket to me, Cassiodorus.  If you're not pessimistic, let me see your realism or optimism or whatever else you have on hand.

              And btw, PR does count, not in the sense of achieving anything, but in the sense that the pols now feel they have to pay lip service in order to stay safe and secure in their jobs.  That is significant.  I thought they had ceased to pay any attention to the proles at all.

              Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:46:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't see those as achievements. (0+ / 0-)

                Political PR can be anything you want, as long as policy stays the same.

                Occupy's achievement is to have engaged enormous numbers of people in political decisionmaking based upon direct action and consensus process regardless of their political views.  This is an important step upward from "let's support the Democrat/ Republican" and "let's plead before the Emperor" version of politics that has predominated in American history.

                Political empowerment doesn't mean that you're spending more time pleading before politicians who aren't listening to you.  Political empowerment means you're doing more things to change your communities.  Occupy has woken millions of people to that realization.

                We're taking it to the streets, and we're staying in the streets until it's over.

                "But it ain't about who ya love, see it's all about do ya love," -Michael Franti

                by Cassiodorus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:36:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  good advice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassiodorus

          After reading hours and hours of opinions, blogs, news etc. You have hit the nail on the head. JESSE......listen to this one.

        •  I agree with a lot of what you say (0+ / 0-)

          but please look at the reason Jesse has decided to shift focus briefly to the political class.

          The Internet Blacklist bills and the indefinite detention bill both appeared on people's radars this week (I had been following SOPA, but hadn't known about PIPA.  And the fucking detention bill came out of nowhere for me.)

          These two things, taken together, could strike at the heart of OWS, and any future organizing in this country.  We need to respond.

          We do not, IMO, need to make "Occupy Congress" or "Occupy Obama Fundraisers" or "Occupy Political Party X" our new strategies.  There are dozens of better things we could be doing.

          But I support this action of Jesse's, as an action, not an ongoing strategy.

          Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:44:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't see anything wrong with taking a position (0+ / 0-)

            But let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're actually pressuring anyone in the political class.  When they finally enact the fascist legislation they so desperately desire, we will have to organize the resistance.

            "But it ain't about who ya love, see it's all about do ya love," -Michael Franti

            by Cassiodorus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:41:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Mostly true, at the moment. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassiodorus
          Congress is not going to be "pressured" by Occupy.  Nor is the Democratic Party going to be "pressured" by Occupy.

          Not much, and not right away is going to change, other than people's perceptions and conversations. But little by little, and then perhaps suddenly, real change will be surprisingly and unexpectedly rapid.

          H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

          by Knarfc on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:00:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  There are some things Obama can do (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, Supavash, Curt Matlock, highacidity

        to avoid demoralizing Dems and Dem leaning voters.  

        OTOH, we have to be careful to avoid letting the GOP push us into demoralizing our base.  

        Obama can do more, but we have to be judicious with our criticism  and avoid fanning the flames too much.

        "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

        by Betty Pinson on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:27:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No "Bill" can reverse Citizens United (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tool, dragonlady, Matt Z

        ...which is EXACTLY why OWS has to be at least somewhat political, and one of the highest agenda points should be helping to push a constitutional amendment!

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:34:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  #OccupyThePolls (5+ / 0-)

        Jesse, I agree.  Our efforts should not be so much with electing Democrats per se, as with electing progressives who stand up for us in substantial ways that significantly challenge the status quo.  Under the current political climate, nearly all such people will be Democrats.  That is a strategy that is quite different than simply giving an indiscriminate blanket endorsement to the Democratic Party.

        This is not to say that supporting progressive campaigns should become the only thing we do from now on.  We should also keep doing the things we've been doing, and also look for new things to do to get in the face of the 1% and let them know in no uncertain terms that we shall persevere and win.

        We also need to make a distinction between offering valid criticisms of Obama's policies and indiscriminately bashing Obama and thus weakening ourselves.

        No one should underestimate the potential of our opponents to co-opt us.  I've been hearing pieces of Sean Hannity during the last few weeks, and the emphasis is gradually shifting from "dirty hippies" to "We sympathize with what some people in Occupy Wall Street are saying.  But if you don't quite agree with everything they say, consider coming over to the real populist movement, the Tea Party."  

        Finally, to anyone in #OWS who is considering sitting out the upcoming elections, consider this: With Obama as president, we faced rogue police who are badly in need of retraining in accord with internationally accepted human rights standards.  But with a Republican president, we could be facing the likes of Blackwater/Xe.  Undoubtedly our efforts to change things would become considerably more difficult, to say the least.  And I would really hate to see that happen.

        FOX News: For entertainment purposes only. Not to be confused with actual news broadcasting.

        by IowaBiologist on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:43:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes and No (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IowaBiologist
          With Obama as president, we faced rogue police who are badly in need of retraining in accord with internationally accepted human rights standards.

          They're not "rogue" police, and it's not a training issue.  It's a cultural issue in a top-down hierarchy.  It needs to be addressed from the top (politicians) down (white shirts).  When that happens -- which change can only be effected by citizen outcry -- the behaviors of the blue shirts will change.  It's about leadership standards, not training.

          But with a Republican president, we could be facing the likes of Blackwater/Xe.  

          This is something a police officer brought up on a discussion board in early October. I blogged about it.  Privatization of prisons has been so popular that they're now trying to put prisoners onto fire crews.  (Let me list only the top 100 reasons that's not going to work.)  Police definitely see their jobs being outsourced, and it scares the shit out of them as citizens.

      •  Here's your bon mot for that: (0+ / 0-)

        Don't tell me what you promise to do, or what you are trying to do. Show me what you have done that is making the changes we need.

        Bring them all home NOW. There is no longer any excuse.

        by llbear on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:41:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I didn't know he was (12+ / 0-)

      president when the economy crashed.

      •  He Wasn't. And Also, As It All Happened (10+ / 0-)

        the numbers they had were not accurate (as Ezra Klein has reported). Even their worse case numbers were not as bad as things actual were.

        But we now know the banks got $7.7 trillion. They kept going back to get hundreds of billions in zero or even negative interest loans.

        Given when everything went down it was total panic. But once that panic was over I QUESTION why more demands were not made of the banks if they wanted these loans.

        I mean it was a license for them to just print money, since they were getting truck loads of money for NOTHING.

        WTF happened here? Obama can't blame this on Bush. He just can't.

        When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

        by webranding on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:33:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm talking about the current (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Curt Matlock, SoCalSal, highacidity

          economic crisis. You cannot say he is the most responsible for it. That is simply not true. Yeah, I saw that report by Ezra Klein, which is why they did not really push for a more adequate stimulus. Although, it probably would not have passed anyway.

          Yes, yes, I know the secret loans are egregious but I still think it's disingenuous to lay all the blame for the economic crisis on Obama.

          •  I Am Agreeing With You (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Supavash, jrooth, highacidity, Matt Z

            That Klein article is stunning. I don't recall the numbers off the top-of-my-head, but their worse case numbers were not even close to the reality.

            But after the initial bail out they let the banks go back and get trillions in no or negative interest loans with no strings attached. I fault them for this.

            They had time to think things through and they just gave the banks basically a license to print money without getting anything in return.

            When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

            by webranding on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:47:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Well the guy who was President then (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rcnewton, ahumbleopinion

        is not in office anymore, so it's clearly not an effective strategy to protest in front of his house.

    •  Obama's administaration may be part of the problem (26+ / 0-)

      but He is NOT "by far the person most responsible", Jesus! way to give Repulicans, Bush and Wall street a free pass. This is exactly what the rightwing media  keep hammering into ours heads: Obama and Obama alone is responsible for this! Not Bush, Not Republicans and not Wall street. Obama is no angel but how about we go after the true enemy?.

      •  Again, he's the President (6+ / 0-)

        If Bush were still President, I'd say he's the person most responsible. The person with the most power to change things is the person most responsible for the way things are, and at all times in our system of government, that is the President.

        •  He IS the president. Still doesn't mean that he is (12+ / 0-)

          responsible for the economy crashing. Of course He should do more  to stop the Wall street criminals. We all wish he was the  far left wing socialist like the GOP claim. He is not, he never claimed to be. I voted for him knowing he was a centrist Democrat because there was no progressive on the ballot. Saying Obama is the most responsible for this whole mess is ridiculous, it's what the right wingers say on a daily basis.

        •  well that's correct if (6+ / 0-)

          you consider a "bully pulpit" as the most powerful vehicle to effect change.

          Now if Obama were a dictator in a fascist system, then he might have some real power.

          But, thankfully, this is a democratic republic.

          He can't pass laws, he can only approve or disapprove.

          He can declare war, but only if Congress approves. Granted, Congress has been spineless in that regard, but that is Congress's fault for not exerting it's Constitutional prerogatives.

          He has some, but definitely not all, control over his branch, the Executive (for instance, the Justice Department has a duty to independently monitor the activities of the Executive Branch).

          He does not control local or state governments.

          And since the Democratic Party is not a top-down fascist organization like the Republican Party, he has minimal "control" over it - much influence, but no real control.

          This isn't a fascist dictatorship, so under our system of government he has, at most, approximately one-half of the power available, and is subject to the scrutiny of at least one "person" who petitions the Supreme Court.

          The president was originally designed by the founders as a very weak office -  look it up. They weren't too fond of absolute rulers like kings....

          OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

          by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:02:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who is more powerful than the President in (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cassiodorus, rcnewton

            the American political system?

            •  Your words: (7+ / 0-)
              The person with the most power to change things is the person most responsible for the way things are...
              (my emphasis)

              you did not say the person who is the most powerful in the American political system.

              I would argue, aside form the bully pulpit, that the President, in fact, has very little power "to change things".

              It should be easy for you to "prove" your point. Just explain, please, how the President has the

              most power to change things

              How does he do that? What can he change?

              You seem to have strong convictions on the subject. It should be fairly easy for you to outline one or two things that he could do, aside from using the bully pulpit, to effect change to the country right now without help from Congress.

              OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

              by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:21:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again who has more power to change things (0+ / 0-)

                than the President?

                As far as what he could do, he could ask for the resignations of Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner, and he could replace them with people answer to the 99%, not the 1%.

                •  Yeah, he could do that. (8+ / 0-)

                  Who would you suggest to replace them?

                  And do you really think that would change anything? Do you really think that the government has real, actual control over the banking system in this country? That control was ceded a long time ago, probably about the time that Andrew Jackson was elected President.

                  There are no simple (uncomplicated) answers, there are only simple (uncomplicated) questions - that's the problem.

                  So I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I simply disagree that the President of the United States has any real "power to change things" (whatever "things" are and whatever "change" is), aside from the bully pulpit.

                  What he does have is the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, subject to approval by the Senate of course. Now that, my friend, is a definite power to change things, as long as the Senate agrees with his choice. And with less than 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats, with their nominal head, B Obama, are subject to the whims of the fascist Republican Party.

                  So, you may be right in your assertion that there is no one "more powerful" in the United States, but that power simply doesn't equate to an ability to change things without the help of Congress.

                  This country is not a dictatorship.

                  Gotta' go. I'll check back later if you care to continue the exchange.

                  OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

                  by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:51:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, I do think replacing Bernanke and Geithner (0+ / 0-)

                    with other economic officials who have a better track record of acting on behalf of the 99% would change things. I don't know exactly who that would be, but people like Paul Volker, Joseph Stiglitz, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich come to mind.

                    I'm well aware of the power of the Federal Reserve, and that the Federal Reserve is not exactly under the direct control of the President, but I've also never seen the Federal Reserve publicly out of step with the President either. Ultimately, the Fed was created by an act of Congress, and it's more important policy governors are appointed by the President, so they are a creature of government, and can be brought to heel if the will is there, which it is not.

                    •  Of course, we have nothing to learn (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Matt Z

                      from history, but I would note that the aforementioned Andrew Jackson "brought to heel" the national banking system of his time. The result was a withering depression/recession that deeply hurt Jackson's populist supporters.

                      Does the banking system need reform? Of course it does.

                      But I'm afraid it's one of those things that is a lot easier said than done.

                      Especially when the world financial system is teetering on the brink of insolvency - admittedly at their own fault.

                      Think of it as having car trouble in the middle of the desert. The car is still running poorly, but it will probably at least get us closer to town. I would suggest it is wiser to get a little closer to town using the broken engine rather than dismantling the engine on the spot and carrying it on your back into town for repairs.

                      On the other hand, I guess it would be "fun" to witness a full scale run on all the banks - haven't had one of those in decades, but before the bank reforms of the 30's they happened regularly every 5-10 years.

                      But that was then, this is now. I'm sure there is nothing to be gained by looking to the past.

                      OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

                      by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:10:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  We don't necessarily need a return to (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        hillbrook green

                        the days of Andrew Jackson (although I'm not in a position to evaluate the claim that he set off a horrific depression), and I clearly think some of the basic reforms of the 1930's make a lot of sense (insured deposits, separation of commercial and investment banking), but I think in general you might say that there are two ways for government to respond to a financial crisis, assuming it has funds at its disposal:

                        1. Try to prevent the failure of "too big to fail" institutions through bailouts, loans, backstops, low-interest rates, whatever else; and

                        2. Try to prevent the financial crisis from hurting poor and middle class people through strengthening the social safety net, loaning money directly to homeowners, small businesses, seizing failed institutions, paying off depositors and selling the leftover assets to more financially sound institutions.

                        I think it's fair to say that "all of the above" has been done by governments across the world with respect to this financial crisis, but IMHO, I would rather see much more of #2 and much less of #1.

            •  Congress and the Judiciary (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gramofsam1, doroma, Matt Z

              are equally powerful.

              You are looking for one person to pin the problems on.  It can't be done.

              •  I'm not "looking for one person" (0+ / 0-)

                I'm saying that there is no single person with more power to change the status quo in America right as it relates to the economy and economic policy than the President. That I have to even say such an obvious thing indicates to me the disingenuous of those who are trying to argue something else.

                •  What economic policy do you want (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Matt Z

                  him to implement thta will not result in the whole thing coming down?

                  •  First, I don't believe that absent bailouts (0+ / 0-)

                    "the whole thing is coming down". I would suggest you do a little reading on Iceland, which had a bank crisis several orders of magnitude worse than ours (when measured against the size of their population and economy). They put their bank bailout to a referendum, and the people rejected it. The sky did not fall. From the Krugman piece linked above:

                    So bailing out the banks while punishing workers is not, in fact, a recipe for prosperity. But was there any alternative? Well, that’s why I’m in Iceland, attending a conference about the country that did something different.

                    If you’ve been reading accounts of the financial crisis, or watching film treatments like the excellent “Inside Job,” you know that Iceland was supposed to be the ultimate economic disaster story: its runaway bankers saddled the country with huge debts and seemed to leave the nation in a hopeless position.

                    But a funny thing happened on the way to economic Armageddon: Iceland’s very desperation made conventional behavior impossible, freeing the nation to break the rules. Where everyone else bailed out the bankers and made the public pay the price, Iceland let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net. Where everyone else was fixated on trying to placate international investors, Iceland imposed temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to maneuver.

                    So how’s it going? Iceland hasn’t avoided major economic damage or a significant drop in living standards. But it has managed to limit both the rise in unemployment and the suffering of the most vulnerable; the social safety net has survived intact, as has the basic decency of its society.

                    http://www.nytimes.com/...

                    •  Krugman later admitted that he's ignorant on (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Matt Z, PsychoSavannah

                      Iceland's economy after facing a barage of criticism in the comments on one of his articles.

                      First off, Iceland poured a ton of money into their banks to get them out of receivership in a reasonable shape -- a good chunk of a year's worth of GDP.  To do that, they had to take huge loans -- including from the IMF.  Which required that they implement austerity measures -- about 15% across the board cuts, in addition to tax hikes.  Calling that an "expanded social safety net" is a flat-out insult and portrays quite clearly the fact that he doesn't read Icelandic newspapers at all.  In particular the healthcare system is struggling hard to figure out how to deal with the cuts. Ísafjörður, for example, could end up losing its only hospital.  If you don't know what that means, he's located here.

                      This came on top of the catastrophic effects of a currency collapse which Krugman likes to pretend was just a walk in the park, but in reality was borne entirely on the backs of ordinary Icelanders.  Iceland is a country which imports most of its goods, so having the currency worth half of what it was is like having an across-the-board huge cut in salaries.  Beyond that, a lot of Iceland's home loans were foreign currency-indexed, meaning that principle rises when the exchange rate changes, not just payments.  The supreme court recently ruled certain aspects of such loans illegal, so people won't be on the hook for a full doubling of principal, but it's still a very hard hit.

                      Krugman and his ilk simply ignore what the kreppa has done to ordinary Icelanders and point to absurd comparisons, like Iceland's comparatively good unemployment rate (ignoring that Iceland's unemployment rate has always been exceptionally low, normally in the 1-2% ballpark), and other factors which are simply just due to how long Iceland has been dealing with the kreppa already.

                      Krugman's writings on the subject are not just misinformed, but insulting.

                      •  He's not the only one . . . (0+ / 0-)

                        . . . Krugman was just one of the speakers at an entire conference dedicated to looking at Iceland's example.

                        The safety net issue is actually immaterial to this discussion. The main issue has to do with the referendum vote by the people on the bank bailouts, and the fallout from that. Because of that vote, Iceland may have used public finances to rebuild its banks, but it didn't use them to pay back bad debt that had accumulated before the collapse. That stands in contrast to most other places.

                        The question then becomes, not did Iceland suffer, because certainly everyone has suffered, and the size of the crisis in Iceland relative to other countries as compared to its economy was huge, but did Iceland suffer more (or less) than it would have had that referendum gone the other way. So, citing the problems that have occurred doesn't really answer that question.

                        •  The debt wasn't Iceland's. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PsychoSavannah

                          It was private debt.  Iceland has consistently held to the logical policy that private entities must pay private debts and public entities must pay public debts, but not the other way around.  The banks still owe their money and now that they're worth something again will be paying them.

                          The reason that the financial markets still see Iceland as good on their public debt is because they've never shirked from paying their public debt.

                          The referendums were a response to pressure from the UK and Netherlands to try to make the Icelandic public pay for private debt.  Since the Icelandic banks are now worth enough again to pay their debt obligations, it's a moot point now -- the only fight is over whether they can force Iceland in the EFTA to pay the interest from the delay.

                          The UK didn't exactly endear themselves to Iceland in the process by classifying them as a terrorist organization.

                          •  And that's precisely the point (0+ / 0-)

                            In the U.S., the public funds were used to pay the private debts of too big to fail banks, AIG, Freddie/Fannie, etc. We were told that if we failed to do so, the world would end, the same way Iceland was told that if they failed to do so, their world would end. It's the "counter-factual" that underlies all discussions about the wisdom of the bailouts.

                          •  But Iceland did put a *huge* amount of public (0+ / 0-)

                            money into their private banks in the receivership process.  More per capita pumped into the banking system than anywhere else in the world.   They had to massively indebt themselves, including taking IMF loans and austerity programs, to do so.  What they didn't do was nationalize the international banking debt obligations.  

                    •  I'm lucky, I should add... (0+ / 0-)

                      that I'm moving to Iceland after the kreppa hit.  Had I moved before, I'd be just as much on the hook as everyone I know over there, with my money tied up in Icelandic assets.  As it stands, I'm still taking a big pay cut by moving to Iceland, which I wouldn't have had a moved back before the currency collapsed.  I simply love the country enough that it's worth it to me to do so.

            •  Who is more powerful? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doroma, Lost and Found, Matt Z

              The Supreme Court. The dysfunctional legislative branch.

              Unless you're looking at foreign policyonly that is where most of a president's power resides.

      •  I most certainly do not want to give the Rethugs, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Supavash, doroma

        Bush and Wall Street a free pass...that decision was Obama's and he decided to look forward not back. I would love for Obama and his justice department to go after the true enemy, but first he needs to do a little housecleaning  - fire Geithner and get rid of Bernanke.

  •  One of your best diaries ever. (28+ / 0-)

    I concur.  

    We must pressure Dems, but at times that pressure creates reforms.  With R, that pressure does little because they are wholly owned.  

    And while there are many legitimate criticisms of President Obama from the left, he did not the Great Class Stratification and is a reformer.  

    P.S. Check out my diary: Rs are scared of OWS:

    GOP Pollster Luntz "Scared" Of OWS Because Of Its "Impact" On Americans' Views.

    Luntz told attendees that he’s “scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death.” The pollster warned that the movement is “having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.” So the pollster offered some advice for them about how to fight back. Here’s a few snippets of what he said, according to Moody:

    – Don’t Mention Capitalism: Luntz said that his polling research found that “The public…still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.”

    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

    by TomP on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:16:27 AM PST

  •  They aren't a do nothing congress (23+ / 0-)

    they very intentionally block any efforts at making things better.  It's an active, not a passive role.  

    "I have known Herman a long time. He's a very attractive, very articulate person." -Newt

    by Sun dog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:19:43 AM PST

  •  I second your call (11+ / 0-)

    to focus on our elected officials and the corporate parasites. In so doing, it keeps the focus on the axis of evil - the corporate pirates that have rigged the economic game against the American workforce and the policy makers who have given them the ability to suck us dry. The constitution gives us the right to seek redress from the government so lets give the politicos some serious face time. Maybe the corporate media stenographers masquerading as journalists will hear the message.

    Give them hell in DC next week, MoT.

    Be radical in your compassion.

    by DWG on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:25:51 AM PST

  •  Good luck with that (10+ / 0-)

    With the bullhorn they have, the GOP is far more likely to get what they want out of OWS than the Democrats.  

    Watch the comments roll in here slamming Obama for being 'just as bad' as Republicans and describe how this 'movement' isn't easy pickings for GOP strategists?  Can we really not put ourselves in their shoes and see how they might view OWS as more of an opportunity than a threat?  

    I'm not going to slam progressives for just putting their heads down and demanding what they believe is right.  I share those values.  But neither am I going to pretend that there is any great amount of political savvy in the movement, any real strategy for bringing those things about.  

    OWS is a groovy thing for what it is but it could easily be used in an ironic tragedy because most people haven't come close to understanding what 'rovian' means or how the GOP succeeds so well while they represent the interests of so few.  

    "I have known Herman a long time. He's a very attractive, very articulate person." -Newt

    by Sun dog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:32:03 AM PST

  •  Our two party system is a con game (4+ / 0-)

    rigged by the fat cats to fool mouse voters .

    The solution is clear only when we keep our focus on the corruption inherent in the system.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:32:04 AM PST

  •  Well said. (10+ / 0-)

    I don't really have any other comment except that I am relieved that at least one occupier, influential I hope, is looking down the road and examining the no-man's land between desire and actual results.

    OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

    by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:32:55 AM PST

  •  I think some of the disputes here (25+ / 0-)

    relate to context.  OWS should not be turned into an anti-Obama movement, but it is legitimate for OWS to crticize Obama and Dems.  

    There seem to be many currents in the movement and I doubt it will become an anti-Obama movement, although that does not mean it is pro-Obama either.  To me, that's fine.  

    There are many in Occupy who follw a better Democrat electoral strategy and some (or even many) who do not.   Because of those currents, I doubt there will be an anti-Obama consensus.

    This was a courageous diary because some will criticize you.   You're a good man, Jesse.

    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

    by TomP on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:35:51 AM PST

    •  The diarist has posed a false dilemma (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orestes1963

      There's no reason why OWS shouldn't be anti-Obama. However, it shouldn't just be anti-Obama. The vote for Gramm Leach Bliley, which deep-sixed Glass Steagall, was overwhelmingly supported by Dems and Repubs. OWS has lots of potential Dems and Repubs to target as Wall Street assets. One of my criticisms of OWS is that they've been too easy on both the Dem and Repub brands, as well as having failed to call out specific Dems and Repubs by name.

      Thus, to be anti-Wall Street greed requires being anti-Dem and anti-Repub; not everywhere and always, but many places and much of the time.

      The diarist is equating being anti-Obama with being coopted by Republicans. As per the above, this is nonsense. To put things another way, OWS could be anti-Obama, and even more anti-Republican. After all, Obama's only been on the national stage for so long, but the Repubs (and Dems) have been working for much longer than that to prostitute America to Wall Street greed. (Indeed, the OWS demographics suggest that that eventuality is more likely than the imaginary anti-Obama / coopted by Republicans false dilemma that the diarist is trying to sell us.)

      If the diarist wanted to do OWS a favor, he would abandon his false dilemma, and instead push OWS to remembers ALL the Wall Street sellouts, of both parties, that infest Congress, as well as Obama.

      ============

      Anyway, as MoT assures us that he "will not allow the GOP to coopt OWS", why is there a problem? With such awesome powers at his disposal to control an avowedly leaderless movement, there should have been no need to write this diary.

      •  Gramm-Leech-Bliley was NOT (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        overwhelmingly supported by Dems. That's a Republican talking point.

        The vote in the Senate was split along party lines, with only Hollins of South Carolina crossing to vote with the R's.

        AFTER CONFERENCE, the Dems got on board - that was how politics was done, if you can remember those bygone days...when a minority party couldn't stop a majority party from passing something, they offered votes in exchange for items they wanted.

        •  Sounds like a shabby excuse, but I'll bite (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pot

          What exactly did the Dems get for their votes, that we should absolve them? What exactly was worth giving a thumbs up to gambling with the entire country's future financial solvency?

          •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z

            that was a dozen years ago and I wasn't much paying attention to the details, honestly.

            But I know the way conferences used to work - and there were good reasons to think that Glass-Steagal needed to be updated, if not repealed (things got heady).

            Hindisight is very easy; being in the mix, not so much.

            Barney Frank was among those in the conference, by the way, and Clinton signed off on it. If everyone's your enemy, no one's your friend.

  •  Not sure you'll have a choice, MOT (5+ / 0-)

    From the looks and sounds of things, the message is not the GOP's or that of FOX news, it's that of (at least some of) the more vocal occupiers themselves.

    Only by learning to live in harmony with your contradictions can you keep it all afloat. --Audre Lorde

    by Nanette K on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:38:14 AM PST

  •  Disagree... (5+ / 0-)

    ...you do realize if Obama had been the moderately progressive president he fooled everybody into believing he would be, there would be no OWS movement?

    I have to disagree.

    The OWS is about Obama.

    It's about Obama's failure as president.

    If Obama wants to get the 99% to vote for him next Nov., then the ball is in his court.

    Obama has a symbiotic relationship with Wall Street that must be severed if Obama wants to win in 2012.

    Don't get caught up in what Republicans are saying.

    They will spew their ignorant poison regardless of the situation.  

    If literally every person in America had a job, Fixed News would fire Sean Hannity so America would have an unemployed person to blame on Obama.
     

    When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in excess body fat and carrying a misspelled sign.

    by wyvern on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:38:59 AM PST

    •  You make some good points (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, James Hepburn, AnnieR

      but I think if they focus on Obama, then it does become partisan. It's better to focus on the system. They should still target and protest him but the focus solely cannot be on him.

      •  I'm not saying... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shockwave

        ..OWS should focus on Obama.

        I'm saying Obama's failure to be the type president he lead us to believe he would be is why there is currently an OWS movement.

        When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in excess body fat and carrying a misspelled sign.

        by wyvern on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:06:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Heh (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Supavash, AnnieR, Chitown Kev
          I'm saying Obama's failure to be the type president he lead us to believe he would be is why there is currently an OWS movement.

          I just said the same thing upthread somewhere.

          I agree with Supavash though. Obama is irrelevant. We need to focus on real, systemic reforms and remove the money from politics. Nothing else matters.

        •  Nah. OWS has been 35 years (4+ / 0-)

          in the making.  The difference now is middle class is being hurt by republican policies.  There was never any chance of an OWS movement until the economic pain caught up with the middle class.  That started in 2007.  The dem House was stymied by bogus filibusters in the marginally majority Senate.

          There are a lot of factors that birthed and incubated OWS.  Obama's inaction is only part of it.

          •  You and I define middle class differently (0+ / 0-)

            The middle class in this country has been hurting for at least 20 years.  I think you may mean the bourgeoisie, which is more affluent than the middle class.  Median income in the US for a family of four is approximately $70,000.  These Americans (teachers, clerks, secretaries, non0-union laborers, etc.) have been suffering for years.  This did not start in 2007 for them.

            •  I meant to type 2009. The lending mask (0+ / 0-)

              fell off in 2009 and forced everyone to see just where they allowed things to go for the past 35 years.....us middle-income earners have been losing ground for a long time, much longer than 20 years.  But easy credit masked it for a long time.  Now that people have to try to live on their actual wages, and businesses have to operate on their actual revenues without the benefit of neverending credit, eyes have been opened.  It's part of why the austerity crap has been accepted by so many people.  They look at their own balance sheet, see their own family having to cut back to pay off their debt (while having BoA and Discover cut their credit lines) and they think the USA should have to do the same.

      •  if they focus on Obama (0+ / 0-)

        OWS becomes a fringe and nothing more.

        And the GOPers have a slightly better chance of winning.

        If OWS = Firedoglake (politically), OWS should stop calling itself the 99% and add a decimal point between the nines.

  •  I'm somewhat in agreement (9+ / 0-)

    I believe that we should resist co-option by anyone, especially by the minions of the 1%, be they GOP, Dems, DNC, RNC, etc. Our power lies in being outside the system.

    I believe that as we move into phase 2, having gotten our message out and changed national discourse, that we make life as uncomfortable as possible for the 1%. They need to be reminded of who we are, and that there are far more of us than them.

    I also believe that, having illuminated how broken and corrupt our political system is, that we remove ourselves from it as much as possible. Go local and go cooperative, away from the moneychangers and their puppets. Establish community gardens where we can grow our own healthy food and keep our own bee colonies, away from Big Ag's practices of pesticides, pollution, and exploitation of migrant workers. Use community markets to support local craftspeople.

    When are you going to understand that being normal is not necessarily a virtue? It rather denotes a lack of courage. - Practical Magic

    by Keori on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:41:40 AM PST

    •  Excellent comment. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Libby Shaw, Supavash, Shockwave, Matt Z

      It's the inequality.

      I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

      by TomP on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:45:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not "the inequality" (0+ / 0-)

        You really sound like one of the "serious" people on TV when you say that. Seriously.

        I don't know a single person who even talks about inequality who's not an activist or a pundit. Real people don't expect everyone to be equally wealthy.

        What we expect is for our government to represent us instead of plutocratic elites who are out to destroy our way of life.

        We expect not to have the money drained from our society to pay off banksters gambling debts.

        We expect not to be attacked by our own government on every front.

        We expect our politicians not to be crooks.

        There's a reason why the clowns on TV always try to make OWS about "the inequality." It's so they won't have to discuss all that other stuff OWS is about.

        Especially the part about how we expect our public airwaves to not be used as weapons of disinformation against us. The serious people hate that topic.

        Anyway, I could go on and on. But if I were to sum it up, it sure a hell wouldn't be inequality. It would be injustice. Or more accurately, class warfare.

    •  I disagree. We can do everything you say locally, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftykook, PsychoSavannah

      but still work so that the best people can get elected.

      People can drop out of the system if they want, but for me it's never either/or. It's both and. The great swath of the American people won't drop out, so it's up to us to try to deliver the best elected officials possible for them and us.  Certainly Barney Frank was one of those effective officials.  I don't regret for one moment that this man was in office.

      "...be still, and cry not aloud; for it is an unholy thing to boast over slain men." Odysseus, in Homer's Odyssey

      by Wildthumb on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:59:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh gee (0+ / 0-)

        I really hoped we could get our money back from those bankers with an army of bees.

        •  You can't eat dollars (0+ / 0-)

          And with colony collapse disorder, our food supply is seriously threatened.

          Money would be nice, but if it comes down to it, I'd rather eat than shop.

          When are you going to understand that being normal is not necessarily a virtue? It rather denotes a lack of courage. - Practical Magic

          by Keori on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:33:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I should have clarified (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't mean for people to stop voting, simply to remove ourselves from a political-economic system meant to support the 1%. The less we engage in a corporate-run system, the less negative impact the 1%'s puppets in office can have on us while we're in the middle of replacing them.

        When are you going to understand that being normal is not necessarily a virtue? It rather denotes a lack of courage. - Practical Magic

        by Keori on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:03:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My passion right now as a volunteer is husbanding (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Supavash

          nature centers on school campuses. I'd like to see a nature center, however small, on all school campuses, from elementary to college. While I do that, I'm going to help out some national people and some local people get elected who just might be more sympathetic than others towards education, science, and providing "extracurricular" activities for young people who otherwise would not have access to them.

          I want to do both. I have absolutely no problem with that.

          And bees are one of the big deals in our nature centers, by the way. (And tadpoles. And lizards....)

          "...be still, and cry not aloud; for it is an unholy thing to boast over slain men." Odysseus, in Homer's Odyssey

          by Wildthumb on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:55:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Neither you nor FOX turned OWS against Obama (6+ / 0-)

    The OWS protesters did that themselves, from the asinine mic check in NH to the pointless protest outside the fundraiser last night, and resulted in driving that wedge in further between OWS and those the movement would rely on for support.

    •  No, no, no. YOU'RE the one driving that wedge (5+ / 0-)

      Because you apparently have no capacity to decouple the problems with the system from the politicians working within and manipulating it.

      You're the one making it about Obama, not OWS. If you can't understand the distinction between protesting a politician and protesting a policy, that's your problem. Please don't project it onto everyone else.

      Everyone knows Obama needs the money. That doesn't make it OK that people are allowed to presumably buy that influence.

      Slap happy is a platform.

      by averageyoungman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:59:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that's the case. (11+ / 0-)
        You're the one making it about Obama, not OWS. If you can't understand the distinction between protesting a politician and protesting a policy, that's your problem.

        The rhetoric of OWS at last night's action (did you see some of those signs?), in addition to the notable dearth of GOP fundraisers they've attempted to occupy, would seem to belie that point.

        Look even here at what people who are part of OWS are saying, right here in this very thread. It's not about "the system" or "a policy" at all; it's about Barack Obama, and his failure to do what they wanted him to do, with absolutely no attention paid to the ways in which the system (legally, constitutionally, rhetorically, and financially) sets the boundaries for what he can do.

        "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 Dec 01, 2011 at 09:17:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  People who support OWS and (11+ / 0-)

          the re-election of the President, like MoT (and me) seek to bring all those together, to prevent hostilities.  Work to find common ground where you can.  

          I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

          by TomP on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:19:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I support President Obama and OWS's goals too. (7+ / 0-)

            Please don't misconstrue me as saying that the entirety of OWS is opposed to President Obama, because that obviously isn't the case.

            But I don't think the argument that the above commenter made—that the only people interpreting OWS's action last night as anti-Obama are the President's supporters, and that the whole of the OWS movement was protesting the system and not the man—is in any way accurate.

            "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 Dec 01, 2011 at 09:23:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I did not even see anything about last night on (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              averageyoungman, Matt Z, Escamillo

              the news, so don't know, but I suspect it will not become the focus of OWS.  

              I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

              by TomP on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:25:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Uh, don't put words in my mouth, thanks (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              orestes1963

              Because that's not what I said.

              I respectfully replied to your comment, and noted that your point was well taken, but eff that if you're going to tell me what it is that I said. What I said is that the commenter I replied to was driving the wedge. I didn't say anything about "the only people interpreting OWS's action last night as anti-Obama are the President's supporters." What I did say was that it wasn't OWS making it "about Obama," and I stand firmly by that statement. On the other hand, the commenter I replied to took the polar position that it was the " OWS protesters themselves who turned OWS against Obama," calling the mic check addressing the President's silence on police brutality "asinine" and that they were driving the wedge. I'll refer to my original comment in regards to that, because I stand by it.

              All this, and as TomP said, this is just simply not going to become the focus of OWS. OWS didn't allow it to happen with "anti-semitism" or anything else, and it's not going to happen with Obama.

              I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, especially without addressing me directly.

              Slap happy is a platform.

              by averageyoungman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:52:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I saw it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pinto Pony

          But I never did see it when I was at OWS and in the marches (I never slept there. Not trying to own something that isn't mine).

          Which makes MOT's point even more salient - we can't let it become co-opted. From my perspective, it's a clear astro-turfing attempt. The wrong people recognized an opportunity and took it. Or, some people that really believe it did. It is, after all, their prerogative. That should not force the real point of the protests from shifting however, and operating out of fear will cut the movement off at the knees. That's my point, and I think the comment to which I replied shows a clear example of someone falling for the astro-turf. The right gets what it wants if that happens.

          For us, like it or not for this to work as effectively as possible every politician contributing the problem will have the suffer some criticism.  But like I said in a comment yesterday, there's just no way Obama will be seen as being equally corrupt as his competition. The public likes him and I don't see that changing.

          To your point about the comments in this thread, I haven't seen them, and I don't agree with any that focus on him as the root of the problem. Your point is well taken, but I  still see the comment I replied to as perpetuating the problem.

          Slap happy is a platform.

          by averageyoungman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:31:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The next poll will show OWS support tanking (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        With a notable drop off among everyone left of center. We haven't had an update yet, but mark my words, that's what we'll see. So brace yourself.

        And with OWS popularity already falling, OWS will wonder why such a good and just movement jumped the rails, flailed around, and fizzled out out.

        And the inflection point will be the mic check in NH.

        No, I saw the signs at the rally yesterday. This was about Obama, not campaign finance. It's always been about Obama, and how he broke our hearts and sold us out and all that crap.

        When was the last time OWS protested Romney? Or Boehner? Or McConnell? Or Harry Reid? Right.

        And that wedge between OWS, and the people it counts on for support, will get driven in deeper.

        Good job, kids!

    •  Obama turned his base against him. (0+ / 0-)

      He did it by siding with wall street and the 1% over the folks that knocked on door and made phone calls.

      Their prevailing attitude? "Eff Obama"

      You might not like it but that's the reality we're dealing with.

  •  Pushing the Democrats (and Republicans) (14+ / 0-)

    in the right direction is absolutely spot on.  That includes criticism.

    But, OWS needs to stay away from getting caught up in partisan crossfires and getting hung up on the cult of personality--both those who support unquestioningly and those who reflexively attack--surrounding the President.

    It's perfectly possible to discuss the issues and the forces without discussing the personalities.

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

    by Geekesque on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:48:19 AM PST

  •  The movement should not be co-opted (16+ / 0-)

    to defend Obama either.

  •  That has to be the stupidest GOP talking point of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Tool

    all.

    "Yes, Wall Street is engaging in corruption and benefitting from it, but you should only protest the government for enabling it?"

    Newsflash, GOP:

    the Occupiers are doing BOTH.

  •  the 99% is hijacked by the 1% who always vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rcnewton

    for non of the above and the lizard people...nicely done.

    /If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer/. Thoreau

    by hron on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:51:09 AM PST

  •  Good diary. My God, if only the discourse on this (12+ / 0-)

    blog could always be this sensible, rational, and warm, even.

    "...be still, and cry not aloud; for it is an unholy thing to boast over slain men." Odysseus, in Homer's Odyssey

    by Wildthumb on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:54:04 AM PST

  •  Right wing hacks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Matt Z

    including Fox, the propaganda arm for the GOP, will try to divide the OWS participants, pitting them against one another.  They'll send in operatives, if they haven't done so already, in order to foment unrest and divisiveness.  It works like a charm for them every time.

    This time their lucky charm will have lost its power.   The OWS is a powerful force that has changed the national conversation.  The 1% and those who protect them fear this the most.

  •  I'm not as worried about the GOP co-opting... (19+ / 0-)

    OWS, as I am worried about the Ron Paul crowd co-opting it with their stupid "end the Fed" message.  That's been happening at the protests.  I mentioned earlier how they're using a Thomas Jefferson quote to justify getting rid of a centralized bank.

    And my Ron Paul fan ex-neighbor went off last night.

    Okay, gotta say it again because I had to delete the last post: I've been holding this in for a while and I'm gunna say it now: If you still support Obama..You are a FUCKING IDIOT. I look down on you. You are unintelligent and blind if you still support Obama. You are an anti-patriot if you support Obama. You are NOT a true American if you still support Obama. To anyone who still supports Obama......YOU ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS WORLD. So, congrats. Give yourself a pat on the back then WAKE THE FUCK UP. This isn't about Democrat or Republican anymore. This is about freedom or fascism. You take your pick. If you support Obama or any other candidate other than Ron Paul in this election...You're an idiot and lack the basic logical skills of a normal human being. We're at a crossroads in our history and to understand it a little better...I suggest you read a history book...

    See?  If you don't support Ron Paul, you're a fascist.  *rolls eyes*

    But he's been to both Occupy Oakland and Occupy L.A., and he seems to be pretty happy that he's been "converting" people there over to Ron Paul.

    Finally, someone wrote an excellent article debunking Ron Paul's phony populism, Salon's Gary Weiss.  (h/t The Stranger)

    It was a masterful performance. Ron Paul — fraudulent populist, friend of the oligarchy, sworn enemy of every social program since Theodore Roosevelt — had won the day, again.

    Why shouldn’t he? Frauds win, whether they are in finance or politics. Bernie Madoff proved that, and so did Ronald Reagan. The success of the Ron Paul campaign with young voters, which David Sirota pointed out in Salon Monday, is but the latest example of how Americans can be persuaded to support the most reactionary politicians in America when they’re suitably manipulated, even if they aren’t reactionary and, sometimes, even when they identify themselves as progressive.

    ....

    That, fundamentally, is what the deficit debate is all about, from the perspective of Ron Paul and the radical right. It’s not about getting the red ink out of the government but using the government’s fiscal travails as a pretext to change the very purpose of government. So yes, he opposed the Wall Street bailouts, as Rand no doubt would have, and that also is “yay”-worthy to many people. But if you buy that, if you buy Ron Paul, you have to buy the rest of his belief system: his opposition to securities regulation, his opposition to consumer protection, his belief that the markets can defend Americans from the depredations of big business.

    What I’ve just described is many things, but it is the very antithesis of the values of Occupy Wall Street, which is based on opposition to the prerogatives of the top 1 percent at the expense of the 99 percent. Yet rather than forthrightly oppose OWS, which would at least be intellectually honest, Paul has sought instead to co-opt it, con it, calling it a “healthy movement” at one appearance, and seeking to link it with his “end the Fed” agenda. In Keene he went one step further by declaring himself as being in league with the 99 percent and against the 1 percent.

    That’s about as far from the truth as it possibly could be. The only question is, how long is Paul going to be allowed to get away with his faux-populist con job?

    And yes, the Paul fans came out of the woodwork in the comments section to try to drown out Weiss.

  •  Some of the point of of the "pragmatist" arguments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeopardydd

    Is that there's a desperate need for people to have a view "outside this Democratic blog." So in that context, I think that there's a corollary.

    That said, I just don't see how it's possible for the GOP to flip this. Criticism of politicians who are contributing to the problem - and that means anyone - shouldn't wane because of a fear that this could be a negative for Democrats, because if it is, the ones who will suffer are the ones that make DINO an understatement.

    Slap happy is a platform.

    by averageyoungman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:55:52 AM PST

  •  Blame game: that's what they want (16+ / 0-)

    US to play. The GOP wants us to have fights like this: it's Obama's fault vs. no it's not Obama's fault.

    What I've experienced over the last 4 years is a shameful display of republican Congressional racist, sexist behavior and freakshows, with the stated goal of making everything with Obama's touch fail.

    I've watched us food fight ourselves over this president. That's what the GOP wants us to do: break apart and squabble over Obama's imperfections. And he's got them. And I still like him.

    I won't fall for that game. If blame is the way we go, I'm looking at a Congress that should not only return their salaries and their staff salaries to the taxpayers, they should go home, take classes in "how to be a clown" because that's what seems the best career match for all of them and get out of the way. Their behavior is shameful and intractable.

    I think we might actually have a functioning and responsive administration if we all didn't have to deal with those ridiculous distractions, faux causes, lies, distortions brought on by the lunatic right. Would we still have to scream and shout? Most likely. But we'd stand a chance.

    IMHO, OWS should remain  non-partisan. There are many valid critiques of this administration as well as many accomplishments. We should all be ready to jump all over the former and praise the latter, be it OWS or us as individuals.

    But don't write the GOP's talking points for them here. That happened a few months back and was costly to this site. We need to stay on top of the administration and keep the pressure on, but we don't need to fall for the GOPer bait. Please.

    You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. -- Sir Winston Churchill

    by bleeding heart on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:56:44 AM PST

  •  CA OWS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, 4Freedom

    CA OWS is going to focus on foreclosures.  Much of CA is underwater in home prices making the banks foreclose more often because they will not adjust an interest rate change if the house is underwater, but they will foreclose.  This is a great idea. californiaprogressreport.com/site/
    Kamala Harris, CA Attorney General, is investigating the banks and their mortgages.  It helps to give her support when the government and some courts are trying to sweep the fraud under the rug or make a "settlement" that exempts the banks from further prosecution.  As nasty and effective as the GOP and their media are, I believe OWS is larger and more powerful.  The next election is not OWS.  Given their past history, the GOP may steal the next election.  OWS is still bigger especially when the 1% will immediately go military, bomb Iran and use police for repression.
    .

  •  GOP - OWS - Obama (13+ / 0-)

    Thank goodness for this:

    The GOP wants to divide OWS activists and pit them against Obama supporters, thus turning off Democrats and Independents who might be supportive of OccupyWallStreet's pro-working class anti-corporate special interest message and vice versa. This is a classic "divide and conquer" tactic. The goal is to destroy anything that doesn't support Republicans, and this tactic usually works.

    I recognize that President Obama has taken many actions that are wrong from a liberal point of view. Of course he also has taken many right actions. In fact, compared to other Presidents in my lifetime his balance of wrong/right is the best yet.

    Unfortunately, that still doesn't mean he is governing liberally, but in general I personally believe he's doing a pretty good job.

    I've also been generally supportive of OWS, particularly where police have taken violent and anti-Democratic actions against them.

    But Occupy Obama at the dawn of 2012 is more than I can stomach. When that diary came out yesterday I mentally vowed that I would not be recommending any more OWS diaries and would stop defending OWS to my friends if that sentiment grew.

    I'm sure that in some eyes that makes me an enabler of the 1% but I doubt I'm alone among Democrats in feeling that way. Go after President Obama in an election year and I will run away from OWS as quickly as possible.

    OWS has done fine without me or my opinions up til now so I admit you may be best just ignoring me. However, if we end up with President Gingrich I assure you that "OWSer" in the future will end up as reviled and mocked as "Naderite" is today. I fear that because I do believe that a growing "Occupy Obama" movement could quickly go downhill and help the GOP win the Presidency.

    We all agree that would be a disaster don't we?

    •  Spot on ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      "But Occupy Obama at the dawn of 2012 is more than I can stomach. When that diary came out yesterday I mentally vowed that I would not be recommending any more OWS diaries and would stop defending OWS to my friends if that sentiment grew."

  •  Keep the main focus on issues (14+ / 0-)

    not on individual politicians.    

    I'm sure you and the Occupy folks know that, but just wanted to reiterate.

    "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

    by Betty Pinson on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:58:45 AM PST

  •  Thanks for this, MoT (21+ / 0-)

    You're going to take a lot of flack for it, but OWS is increasingly becoming concerned more with itself than it is with America and it is losing people.  People in my family, at least the Democrats were supportive in the beginning, but the constant barrage of propaganda from the right and OWSs adoption of "disruption" tactics which only serve to alienate and annoy people have turned them against it.

    The radicals who are trying to turn OWS into a social experiment of utopian communes across the US are playing right into the hands of the GOP.  They are urging young people to turn their backs on the system and boycott elections.  In so doing, they are depressing the youth vote, without which the Democrats cannot win.

    In addition, they are energizing the Republican base by playing right into the narrative they have set up for OWS from the beginning.  Topless protesters may attract attention, but they turn off socially conservative people who might be sympathetic to economic arguments--and there are plenty of those.  Flash mobs may be kind of fun for those participating but they don't "raise consciousness".  They just piss people off and the kind of people they piss off, those who shop and work in places like Wal-Mart, Target and others of the worst corporate malefactors often can't afford to go anywhere else.  They are not the 1%.  Many of them are in the bottom 20%.  In short they are precisely the kind of people that OWS should be trying to win over.  Instead it is preaching to them and yelling at them.

    If this movement succumbs to the millenarian Revolutionary fantasies of some of its most vocal proponents, or even if the majority of Americans perceive it that way, the GOP will be laughing all the way to the White House, because even if they settle on Romney, they'll have their base fired up about dealing with those self-righteous DFHs.

    In short, you get a fired-up GOP and a Depressed Democratic party.  That is not a recipe for reform of any sort, and if you think the cops are brutal now, just wait until Joe Arpaio becomes Attorney General or head of the DHS.

    History is won by the writers.

    by journeyman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:02:05 AM PST

  •  OWS needs to include all, liberal and converatives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeopardydd

    The focus should be to bring reasonable people into the movement and shun the extremist elements that have corrupted both dems and the GOP.  99% vs the 1% and the crazies?  I like those odds.

  •  I blame Obama (7+ / 0-)

    for the things that are his to blame - the fact that he hasn't been pounding Republicans since the very day that Mitch McConnell said his 'number one priority was to deny Obama a second term'.

    No one who places their own partisan hatred for another politician above doing what's right for the country deserves to hold office, and we barely hear a peep from the WH over the demonstrated contempt for the good of the country that Mitch McConnell and other Republicans who agree with him have displayed.  Instead we had years of 'bipartisanship', and only now, years later does McConnell's disgusting phrase get an occasional mention in a speech here or there.

    That's what I blame Obama for.  For everything else, I blame the perpetrators in the GOP, the Blue Dogs who side with them, and that godawful 'independent', Lieberman, all of whom are lapdogs to their wealthy masters.

    •  and who he hires in his Cabinet (0+ / 0-)

      and what he did with the DNC

      Crap, crap, and crap.

      Oh, and how he and his hired hands (Robert Gibbs, I'm looking at you) talk to those of us who worked our asses off for him.  

      Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:51:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama is not blameless. He's contributed (11+ / 0-)

    to the problem in our government.

    I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

    by slinkerwink on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:10:09 AM PST

  •  GREAT diary (9+ / 0-)

    Did you happen to see this?

    Anyway, 100% agree with everything you wrote here.  Nice work.

    And nice job on The Ed Show last night. :o)

  •  I commented on this diary, then I further (10+ / 0-)

    considered it. This is the kind of sober, correct thinking we need from an activist who has seen it all, thought about it all, and considered it from all the angles, but with a warmth and sympathy that I rarely see matched on this blog now.

    I may be going into hyperbole here, but this may be one of the great, forward-looking diaries of recent memory on this blog. Heed the words of this activist. He indeed has cred. I often want to "pull the camera back" and look
    at an important phenomenon from afar, and with
    reason, and Jesse has done it.

    "...be still, and cry not aloud; for it is an unholy thing to boast over slain men." Odysseus, in Homer's Odyssey

    by Wildthumb on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:13:00 AM PST

  •  I am not worried about the gop cooptin OWS (8+ / 0-)

    I AM worried about Liberals who refuse to allow ANY bad word to be spoken about democrats and or Obama dilluting the power of OWS....for purely partisan reasons

    "Orwell was an optimist"

    by KnotIookin on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:26:52 AM PST

    •  bingo (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      metamars, MrWebster

      honestly, does anybody REALLY think that the GOP will successfully co-opt OWS?

      having been to a few marches and rallies.....I can't see that happening in a million years. It's a false worry - one being used to try to shield a specific politician from criticism.

      •  double bingo (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jeopardydd

        I sure don't. I don't think the Democrats will successfully coopt OWS, either.  

        OWS is amorphous, to the extent that getting a hold of it is would be like getting a hold of jello.

        There was an interesting article on msnbc.com about OWS in Nashville, that had a more conservative and Mid-Western manifestation than Manhattan (square dancing and all). Thus, we can expect different flavors of OccupyX, and statistically, some will seem partisan, in both a Dem and Repub way.

  •  somebody should hire you stat!, to speak for us! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Matt Z
  •  Your critique is superficial, IMO (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, CupofTea

    Fox News is in no way preaching "conservatism" and if we fail to critique it based on that reality, we play into the common narratives people have been conditioned with the facility of the "prevailing wisdom" to believe in.

    Fox News is preaching the unfettered transfer of all wealth, power and resources to the .01% at the top... to people who would "conserve" absolutely nothing in their bloodquest for more, more, more. Nothing "conservative" about people who would destroy the EPA and all existing environmental regulation, what does that exactly "conserve"? Nothing conservative about people who would destroy all rights of labor to organize and workers to have the power garnered by a century of legitimate and heroic struggle, what does that "conserve"? The rich man's paradise of The Gilded Age before the turn of the 20th century that was repudiated by the will of the people in the last 100 years?  What about the hard-won gains of the last 50 years in areas like racial relations, human rights, the free and rapid flow of information via technologies like the Internet? They sure aren't trying to "conserve" those... but those were decided and brought about by the will and necessary struggle of people to broaden the inclusiveness of our world in vital and necessary ways inarguably integral to our efficacy and survival and possible prosperity as a species.

    Fox News is not "conservative" of any world that ever really existed anywhere but in the fantasies of a few wealthy, deluded, repressive and bigoted sociopaths, and it's high time we started making our analysis of it reflect that reality in entertaining and articulate ways that speak to the ergonomy of ideas below the obvious surface we have been fed like lapdogs by the very same forces that have marginalized us to the point where as the vast majority -- 99% -- of society we have to take to the streets to protest the overwhelming minority -- 1% -- for our continuing right to exist on this planet.

    "Some of you are going to die... martyrs, of course, to the Freedom that I will provide!"

    by emperor nobody on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:27:49 AM PST

  •  We can force the Democratic party to ... fight (5+ / 0-)
    that there is a good chance that if we play our cards right we can force the Democratic party to actually fight for working class people the way they are supposed to. There is no chance of that ever happening with the GOP. None. Zero. Zilch.

    This should be one of #occupy's leading goals. We don't need a second party; we need the Democrats to be Democrats.

    Protest is what democracy looks like. Voting is what republican governance looks like.

    by DeanObama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:28:17 AM PST

    •  Coopt the Democrats (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Supavash, Tool, DeanObama, CupofTea, Matt Z, ddn

      The Democratic Party has the institutional power that OWS lacks. The best chance for the 99% is to get that powerful entity working for them again.

      OWS has already caused many Americans to look away from their distractions and confront the truth that most Americans are getting screwed by our political system. But seeing the problem isn't enough.

      The armies of the right-wing will be there to vote next November for the same Republicans committed to the same ideology of favoring the already rich and the already powerful. We'd better show up too or we'll be protesting even worse conditions until 2020 and beyond.

    •  How Dean Obama? (0+ / 0-)

      I see this sentiment alot, but no one has a clear vision on what pressure is.  Applied the wrong way, it turns people off and sounds strident.  Do we set up a strong reward system for those public officials who do take a strong stand with 99%?  I know my Senator, Senator Wyden has.  But then,  not everyone will agree with everything he has ever said and he can be "marginalized."

      Do we start a grassroots movement to recruit progressives?  What would be that reward system?

      Lots of questions still, but we're getting close...

      •  Three ideas to start. (0+ / 0-)

        1 Set the narrative. Keep raising the issue of income inequality in the media and in the halls of power.

        2 Campaign for those who support our progressive agenda and against those who oppose it.

        3 Talk to average people and identify those who support our way of thinking. Change the minds of those who do not.

        Frank Luntz: "Occupy is having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

        by DeanObama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:46:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well said MoT, well said. (6+ / 0-)
    Corporate Republicans (and the Corporate Democrats who love them) would be thrilled if OWS began to focus on protesting Obama fundraisers while ignoring the real problems such as America's corrupt campaign finance system, growing income inequality and the sordid business practices in America's boardrooms that haven't changed a bit since the crash of 2008.

    OWS is about setting the stage for a new set of politicsAmerica.  It has to lead by coming with a new framework rather than become a part, however vocal, of the old political framework.

    Its greatest accomplishment so far is a changing the dialogue from budget deficits to jobs and inequality.

    To the degree that OWS keeps growing and keeps changing the American political dialogue it will stay relevant.

    As individuals we can always act locally or nationally but OWS should not become a third party.

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action 48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam

    by Shockwave on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:28:43 AM PST

  •  THANK YOU, MOT!!!! Just this morning, I opened (12+ / 0-)

    the NY TIMES home page to see a photo of a protester carrying a poster that said OBAMA CAN'T BUY MY VOTE!  That is straight out of the Republican play book and nowhere else.  In fact, Gingrich accused Obama of buying votes with his student loan executive order, giving students a break when they clearly need it.

    Thank you for protesting this obvious attempt to change the subject from the greed of the 1% to Obama.  I have nothing but admiration for you.  You speak for ME.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:33:37 AM PST

  •  Simply put, (6+ / 0-)

    thank you!

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:49:06 AM PST

  •  Well, I'm not sure you represent the majority of (0+ / 0-)

    OWS on this. I've heard some pretty naive, confused and frankly downright inaccurate statement coming from many OWS types. Who are the real "leaders" behind the movement. Do they secretly want to destroy "capitalism"? I think OWS needs to become more disciplined with a consistent message. Otherwise, it will be co-opted by everyone from right to left.

  •  Markos... (6+ / 0-)

    Everytime Jesse posts, I keep on saying this...

    We need to keep Jesse going, hire him.  At least setup a fund to pay his rent at least so he can keep on being vocal for OWS and our democratic values.

    Silence = Consent. Don't be silent any longer

    by doingbusinessas on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:54:44 AM PST

  •  Very sensible post. I agree completely. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citisven, TomP, Matt Z
  •  The bottom feeders on the Potomac are bipartisan. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FlamingoGrrl

    OWS is a great mechanism for spreading the truth.

    I agree with you, MoT, that OWS can't be co-opted by partisan or individual interests. But the media and special interests are doing their best to make it so.
     

    If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. ~ George Washington

    by 4Freedom on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:59:06 AM PST

  •  I don't know why people are disagreeing with this (6+ / 0-)

    Occupy should definitely be concentrating on Congress. If this movement represents the 99%, than doesn't it make sense to focus reform efforts on the people who are the largest part of that non-representative government?

    This doesn't mean that we wholly ignore the actions of the President and do not pressure him at all, but realistically it is Congress with approval levels hovering around 9%, cutting backroom deals and acting as representatives for monied special interests. They are the people who pass the laws, not Obama.

    MOT is right that the GOP is trying to turn this into an Obama blame game. They would like nothing than more for the Occupy movement to dissolve into petty arguments between the pro/anti-Obama contingents.

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

    by deviant24x on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:00:45 AM PST

  •  I would also include (6+ / 0-)

    when you say that:

    But OccupyWallStreet is NOT liberal, it is American. It is moderate and independent and a little liberal and a little libertarian, but overall it is American.

    It is also distinctly progressive. I have seen libertarians, independents, and moderates on the sidelines of this movement so far. This is based on my personal experience in NYC and NJ.

    They are welcome but what I have seen power this movement are liberal progressives and that fact should not be diluted to try and make OWS message more appealing.

    I don't think President Obama is the enemy. I do think
    that he needs to be included in the conversation through protests and demonstrations in order for him to be pushed further to the left.

     While his administration has faced unprecedented opposition to his entire agenda by republicans can we agree a great deal of the policies that he has fought for would be where republicans were 20 years ago?  

    Republicans want to change this debate into Obama vs the 99%. We won't let that happen because we know who the true opponents are. Republicans want to repeal the 20th century with the 1% monied billionaires behind them.  

    I will remain critical of President Obama until he decides that governing as a liberal is in his best interest but I will reserve my disdain and anger for Republicans.

  •  In the eyes of the Republican Party, OWS IS Obama. (6+ / 0-)

    Don't think for a minute that they're not going to do their level best to demonize every last person involved in OWS through their barrage of ads coming soon to a television screen near you.

    Ads that imply support for Obama is support for domestic unrest, screaming unruly children, and people defecating on the sidewalk and commanding the attention of the police.

    They will pull out some select footage of the most ridiculous--appearing protestors and intersperse it with images of Obama, backdropped by an overbearing cloak of his supposed economic failures.

    The message will be-- "This is what you got with Obama in charge, Middle America. How does it look to you?"

    The GOP does not do nuance. They don't see the movement for what it is--they see it just as an extension of the youth vote that's already skewed towards Obama.   If they can depress that vote by inflaming people in the movement against Obama, that would be wonderful for them, but I don't think that succeeds. Because while OWS may purport to be as representative of America as you suggest, I think the reality is that the movement is in fact quite liberal. They know they're not going to "co-opt" that vote--ever, so they might as well marginalize it.  It's what they do.

    So I don't see what's coming as a portending a "liberal bash Obama" fest, but as a concerted effort to demonize all things liberal, OWS and all it stands for included.

  •  I agree that the primary focus should be on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citisven, Matt Z

    Congress and the Wall Street crowd.

    I also agree it's more likely that some (precious few) Democrats are more likely to be convinced to fight for the 99%, but with this caveat: it's a distinction without difference because, while technically true as a matter of practice the difference is pathetically small.

    Also, if you think the Democratic Party doesn't want OWS to be co-opted in the same way you describe the GOP as wanting it (if in a slightly different way) I think you need to re-assess the situation. The Democratic Party would absolutely love it if OWS were either: a) marginalized or b) consumed and sequestered as the Tea Party was for the Republican Party.

    This isn't about one party trying to co-opt it to divide support for the other. It's about both parties wanting OWS to go away, if by slightly different means.

    •  Mmmm...I'm seeing it differently. (0+ / 0-)

      But of course I'm a Dem and an OWS supporter, so your argument doesn't work for me.  

      Oh!  And I really like my Dem Senators Wyden and Merkely.  I think there are more better Dems than you give credit to.  But, that' just me.  

  •  well said, Jesse (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Matt Z

    I do agree that OWS can be the most effective by staying out of partisan politics. OWS is the strongest when it shifts the ground upon which the discussion happens, so that the epicenter of the political discussion moves and all the politicians (even Republicans) move with it.

  •  Has anyone ever noticed that Herman Cain's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CupofTea, Matt Z

    peccadilloes get more publicity than OWS?

    Has anyone ever noticed that when there is MSM coverage the opinion changing information so crucial to educating the 98% that don't go to OWS meetings and events gets lost in the meme that OWS is incoherent and directionless?

    Has anyone ever noticed that the low hanging fruit of argument and contention rather than the higher growing consensus and problem solving issues often gets picked by those with the goal of self-advertisement and profit in arguments and discussions like those above?

    Has anyone ever noticed that the "crab in the calabash bowl" syndrome is so evident in OWS that it pollutes and kills the message of how to solve the problem and lets the actual solutions fall by the wayside?

    Has anyone ever noticed that this just makes OWS a sideshow just like Herman Cain but without his press credentials and credibility in the eyes of the MSM?

    As I have said before: Righteousness is not it's own reward!
    •  Top comment of the week for me! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Keone Michaels
      as anyone ever noticed that the low hanging fruit of argument and contention rather than the higher growing consensus and problem solving issues often gets picked by those with the goal of self-advertisement and profit in arguments and discussions like those above?

      I own Thomas Jefferson's complete works.  He had to deal with the contentious "type" back in the Congress -- even then!  It seems those congress critters have always been among us.  

      And, YES, of course I'm generalizing about congress.  There are many wonderful public officials.  But the stereotype holds and prevails.  Perhaps some day we shall break that pattern and the accompanying pattern of reactionary self-absorbed discussions that lead to the stereotype.

  •  OWS is too far along (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CupofTea

    ...the hate-Obama path to really change it. He's the guy who "sold us out," etc. etc.

    It would be an improvement to shift away from the unfortunate demonstration against Pres. Obama last night in NYC (complete with signs that "Obama is a Corporate Puppet" and "How Many Dead Kids Are Part Of Your Drone Deal'?"), but a broadside against Democrats in Congress isn't much better. It's very important that Democrats retain the Senate and Presidency next year, otherwise the country takes a decidedly regressive tack.

    A Republican President and Senate, unfortunately, is the most likely outcome.

  •  I agree partly, OWS shouldn't be co-opted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Annalize5, aliasalias, joanneleon

    but I see no reason to focus on wall street and congress only. That's ridiculous, and that's co-opting ows, for the sake of the re-election.

    OWS must continue to protest the status quo and the system as it is, and the President is part of that system.  

    So, while I agree that OWS shouldn't be anti-obama, it also shouldn't give deference to him either.

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:36:24 AM PST

  •  If it's American, why were we inspired by Egypt, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CupofTea

    Spain, Greece, etc?  This isn't an American thing, but a global humanist movement.

    •  Because anybody can be inspired (0+ / 0-)

      by good work anywhere.

      what we do here is American, as what they do in Tahrir Sq. is Egyptian.

      That doesn't prevent us from standing in solidarity with each other.

      Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:53:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see the distinction if it's the same urge (0+ / 0-)

        There's nothing nationalist about this.  Why does it need to be?

        •  Because not everybody identifies as (0+ / 0-)

          a world citizen without boundaries.  If you do, good for you.  Humanity is moving that way, but is not there yet.  If you want to move large numbers of people in this country I sure as hell wouldn't lead with "this is a global humanist movement."

          Most people feel attached to their homes, the people they grew up with/around, the culture they're used to, their national or tribal boundaries.  Is that ideal? No.  Is it OK? Yes.  We can treat each other decently across those boundaries without denying they exist.

          You will so lose middle America if you make this a "not-American" movement.

          Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:56:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not OK; they don't exist. (0+ / 0-)

            I don't give a fuck about "losing middle America."  I don't want to organize with people who have fucked-up beliefs.  I want to destroy those beliefs, not accommodate them.  Look, all we have to do is stop saying stupid crap like "it's American! American first! USA! USA! USA!" when it's patently not true.  THAT is limiting, and destructive.

  •  Ok after reading through (9+ / 0-)

    the comments I am saddened by the amount of: I am purer, more committed, I am right you are wrong rhetoric that is starting to rear it's ugly head within the OWS movement, at least on the blogs.

    In other words the all too predictable circular firing squads are starting to form. If it keeps up nobody will have to co-opt the OWS or write bull shit MSM stories about the OWS to kill it off. The movement will kill itself.

    All this aside allow me to say thanks to Jesse for a thoughtful and thought provoking diary.

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

    by jsfox on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:42:58 AM PST

    •  I'm not quite so pessimistic. (0+ / 0-)

      Democracy is messy (yes, an Obama quote), but the human spirit is pretty intrepid and we do have experience working within a democracy, and, who knows?  we may actually be on the brink of something quite wonderful.

  •  This goes beyond all political parties (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Annalize5

    We need the best legal minds to come together for a long term goal that would be an historic game-changer. We need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to preclude even the slightest possibility of influence upon our election process that stems from the direct interest of any corporation. We have come to a time when our elections are virtually meaningless because the dollar value attached to the vote is paramount to individual conscience. This is antithetical to the spirit of our Founding documents. Our leaders are awash in corporate/lobbyist campaign contributions and there are just too many favors owed. My trust in the integrity of our electoral process is gone. Without that trust, how can we expect our Great Experiment to survive?

  •  Thanks for another thought provoker (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, mystery2me, TomP, Matt Z

    When I was driving 700 miles toward home after Turkey day I felt at one point quite confident that I could write a treatise on OWS, and promised myself I never would.  

    But there is a sort of OWS paradox right now.  The hottest thing on the scene, the latest in political sexy, the newest force in American politics -- yet OWS doesn't want to be in politics.  Somehow, it is above mere politics.  Too pure for it.  Too good for it.  Too committed to not being a part of it to admit that one really is engaging in the democratic process (i.e. politics) by demonstrating, donating, discussing and opining.  Pressuring banks is surely a political activity, and little different from pressuring congress critters.  

    It seems to me that there are few productive places for the energy of OWS to go aside from party politics.  To be productive, they have to get what they want.  To get what you want, you need to influence legislation and regulation.  To do that, you must pressure lawmakers, and the folks who most successfully do that are the the ones who get those lawmakers elected.  

    To become a significant force that pressures Dems while they are in office is no small goal.  To do it, you have to get those Dems elected, then hold them accountable.  

    I have for years wanted to see left groups pressure Dem lawmakers more effectively and especially more frequently.  We work to elect them, then never pressure them enough.  

    We need to create and maintain pressure on Dems to be Dems in office.  

    Barney Frank just said about the Republican caucus that it is made up of people who think like M Bachmann, and people who are afraid of losing primaries to people who think like M Bachmann.  Funny, no?

    But think: how do we get a Dem caucus that thinks like Elizabeth Warren, or is afraid of losing primaries to people who think like Elizabeth Warren?  How?  By pressuring and pressuring the Dems until they reflect our values, rather than the values of the other side.  By primarying the bad ones out of office and shaping the Dem caucus.  

    The robb'd that smiles steals something from the thief. -- Shakespeare

    by not2plato on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:53:12 AM PST

    •  Yes, but what do you mean (0+ / 0-)

      specifically by "pressure?"  That word is tossed around alot here.  Usually to "pressure" someone suggests a strong arm tactic that doesn't work on any given population (including elected officials).  There's always a backlash at some point.  

      And where is the action plan for those in office who do consistantly vote progressive values?  Are there rewards for doing the right thing while in public service?

      You sound like a thoughtful person, but without specifics, I don't know if you can achieve your goals.

  •  Repression REQUIRES Safety Releases of Pent Up (0+ / 0-)

    Steam.

    What Joseph Stiglitz (of Nobel Prize in Economics famie) is quoted in Greg Palast's book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," is what instigated my activism.

    The quote was something like Stiglitz saying that when he worked for the World Bank that they would go to each country and claim they would make a "customized recovery plan," BUT the thing was each custom plan had the same 4 steps:

       1.  Privatize (briberize) a public works, such as a dam or airport,  by selling the contract to Bechtel or some other industrial military complex crony.  (See "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," on how all that works by telling the people a ludricrous projections on how much money it will save them in the long run--when the reality only the US contractor will really win out.

        2.  Get rid of all forms of socialism, e.g. public schools, public hospitals

        3.  Get rid of unions and thereby reduce the average work wage

        4.  Prepare for the uprising

    So, IMHO, to allow OWS is to acknowledge that steam must be released.  But now that has been done they are closing down the camps and changing the tune in the corporate-owned and controlled media.

    We need the FCC to do its intended purpose, which was to ensure there is adequate diversity of views on the networks.  Because our democracy is 100% reliant on information in order to vote.

    Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

    by Einsteinia on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:53:19 AM PST

    •  They didn't allow OWS. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Einsteinia

      They were trying to shut it down within about two weeks of its existence.  The overlords didn't decide they would "let" the masses blow of steam in Zuccotti Park.  If so, their responses to the camps would have been very different than kettling unarmed women and spraying them in the eyes with capiscum.

      I agree with your statement about the World Bank and your identification of their strategy; totally disagree with you about their relationship to OWS.

      Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:56:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Overall there has been great tolerance for OWS (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD, CupofTea

        because to do otherwise when we're criticizing strong arm tactics in Egypt and elsewhere would look unseemly.

        Pepper spray is horrendous and abusive, but it is not equivalent to tanks and cannons that are possible.

        But I see there are serious attempts now to try to say, Okay kids the party's over.  

        My point in my comment above was two-fold:

        1.  Public outcry was predicted in this Stiglitz quote, as well as the Citibank Memo from the early 1980s that said there would likely be push back to the new Plutocracy.

        2.  We are now entering Phase 2 of this movement, and I suspect the OWS will hang tough given the fact that people who have been cheated and desperate tend to have little to lose.

         

        Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

        by Einsteinia on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:43:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  With all due respect, Jesse, what you will allow (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orestes1963, joanneleon, MrWebster

    or not allow isn't really relevant.  You are just one person, as is Shepard Fairey, whose latest effort is this:

    Photobucket

    That looks like a callout, to me.  

    The President is the Chief Executive.   You can't insulate him from blame.   Either he is part of the solution, or he is not.   The fact that he was in NYC last night to receive tribute from the 1% cannot be dismissed, out of hand.  

    It would be nice, instead, if he laid out a vision and then pounded it home, every day, that he ain't signing any bills that don't advance that vision.   He hasn't really done that yet.   I don't blame people for losing patience.  

    If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? - Psalms 11:3

    by SpamNunn on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:59:53 AM PST

    •  This is the kind of simplistic nonsense that is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Supavash, doroma, Matt Z

      spouted by people who claim to represent OWS. It is lazy, stupid, and dangerous thinking. I'm sick of it. Reality of Obama and admin is far more grey, nuanced and complicated than this drivel.

      STOP spreading lies.

      •  Yeah. SpamNunn is simplistic. (0+ / 0-)

        But so is your response.  I actually do agree with you, IndySteve -- the problem is a reliance on generalities instead of the hard work it requires accumulating facts and forming an action plan.

        Offer solutions.  This may help bridge the gap.

  •  hopefully people say this to you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, CupofTea, Matt Z

    every single day, jesse, but

    Thank You.

    for everything you're doing. it matters. it's appreciated. Thank you.

    We keep electing whores to congress, and we wonder why we get screwed while the money flows to their pimps.

    by papa monzano on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:16:19 AM PST

  •  OWS (0+ / 0-)

    They have already lost me

  •  Where can I buy some of that toilet paper? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, Matt Z

     

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:22:22 AM PST

  •  I support the President and OWS. To me there is (7+ / 0-)

    nothing contradictory in that statement.  I am not an anarchist.  I believe in good government not no government.  I subscribe to the the economic ideology that we all do better when we all do better, and I mean even the  one tenth of one tenth of one tenth of whatever percent.  The President is collaborative and OWS is collaborative and I think that's a small miracle in itself considering how much self-centeredness has been glorified these last few decades.  I think the President is courageous as well as the OWS champions are courageous.  

    One thing I suspect, that OWS will be much more appreciative of the push back that has been thrown against the President's efforts on our behalf, now that they are being treated as a threat by the corrupt.

  •  Kudos, and co-sign all the way! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, CupofTea, Matt Z

    T&R'd; FB'ed and tweeted, too!

    'I'm The 99%' T-shirt: Will donate from income on sales.

    by jan4insight on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:30:47 AM PST

  •  Well said. Just don't lose focus on the banks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, CupofTea, Matt Z

    while you're focusing on Congress.  Banks, wall st firms AND Congress.  The buyers and the bought.

    Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:30:59 AM PST

    •  BoA. Taxpayers through FDIC (0+ / 0-)

      insuring their European risk portfolio.  The 2005 Bankruptcy law.  Much de-regs passed from 1999 to 2008 allowed what was once illegal to be legal.

      Yes. Prime focus on what banks should or should not be allowed to do or nothing will be accomplished.

  •  what's with (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orestes1963, aliasalias, MrWebster

    all the OWS-hate on here?

    they basically are standing up for the Democratic Party's platform (whether the Dems are willing to stand up for it or not), and you would think that that would be popular here.

  •  I thought it's people on the left that are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeopardydd

    pushing OWS to protest at Obama fundraisers and generally blame Obama for various things. I haven't seen any evidence that the right influences OWS (other than the usual Ron Paul/Alex Jones business). Maybe I'm missing smth.

  •  OWS Should Keep It's Distance From Both (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, valadon, kat68, CupofTea, Matt Z, MrWebster

    political parties, and just keep repeating "99% of Americans have been screwed by the wealthy 1%, and they are not paying their fair share."  A majority of Americans can identify with that - which is why the RepubliCONS are trying so hard to marginalize OWS.  Here is a comeback OWS can use against the GOP/Luntz framing of "occupy Washington, blame Obama."  "The wealthy 1% bought off politicians to deregulate Wall St. at the expense of the 99%."  This turns the conversation back to the 1% screwing the 99% by deregulating Wall St. - something NO Rethug wants to talk about. Why? Because deregulation was pushed in the late 1990's when Republicans had control of Congress.

  •  Bingo! Jesse LaGreca you are a blessing! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, doroma, CupofTea, Matt Z
    And I can see it coming already, on one hand the GOP insults OWS activists, on the other hand they are quietly trying to co-opt our message and turn this whole thing into a "blame Obama-fest".

    This is how they work, always, from 'both ends.' That way they trap people into a confused conflict where every choice serves their interest.

    Here it is:

    Message a: "OWS is bad" (targeting the right wing audience)
    Message b: "Obama is against OWS" (targeting the left wing and the independents)

    This is how they fool and deceive public (American public, and public in general). By "double end" game.

    Blessings Jesse. For the clarity of your mind and the purity of your brave soul.

    Thank you. May you and your loved ones be protected.

    Amen

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:00:28 PM PST

  •  you are right (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, joanneleon, Annalize5

    because a pragmatist without idealism or principle is merely an empty suit !

    Don't let anyone co-opt the struggle...including Democrats..this is a social movement that is inclusive of all who concern themselves with human rights and social or economic justice...and that struggle goes beyond our borders.

    There is merit in neutrality...and there is a benefit in being an independent force.

    "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

    by valadon on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:16:49 PM PST

    •  Fine. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      journeyman, Matt Z, Escamillo

      But whatever it is, that independent force MUST VOTE.

      Staying home, opting out, and not participating is NOT AN OPTION.

      So many people here want to "let Dems lose elections" to what? TEACH THEM A LESSON?

      How'd that work out for the country in 2010?

      You want to change things by NOT participating. WTF. HOW does that work exactly?

      You really think these lawmakers have TIME to come here and read your anger on a blog when they don't even have time to read the bills they vote on??

      Have you ever trained an animal successfully? They don't respond well to punishment because they don't understand it like you and I do. They DO respond to reward. Lawmakers are like those animals - they only understand REWARD.

      The only thing lawmakers (everywhere, not just DC) learn from elections is WHO WINS. They could give a shit about those like you who don't bother to VOTE. So kindly fuck off.

      The GOP are NOTHING AT ALL like the Dems. NOTHING. And if you sincerely think that, you're not paying one fucking bit of attention.

      There are so many FACTS so many of the whiners on this, once great site, actively IGNORE, that it's become some weird fictional reality for you.

      - There were NEVER 60 votes in the Senate. EVER.
      http://blog.reidreport.com/....
      So the DEMS NEVER HAD CONTROL- NOT FOR A MINUTE.

      - President Obama DID sign an Executive Order to close GITMO, but the CONGRESS (including MOST DEMS) have voted to keep it  going FOUR TIMES.
      http://emiliawahoo76.blogspot.com/....

      Stop wasting energy and TIME by sitting out elections. You want a third party that is viable? AWESOME - get something on the ballot to make INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS the law of the land, otherwise it's FUTILE.

      You sit out enough enough elections, you're going to end up relinquishing your power to VOTE to those in the GOP who want to PERMANENTLY TAKE IT AWAY FROM YOU FOREVER.

      These people want to do away Senators being elected by the people, and want to go back to having them appointed by the state legislatures. And that is just the beginning.

      WAKE THE FUCK UP.

      •  You're spamming the same comment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        valadon, pot

        and screaming at people. Do you really think this is an effective method of persuasion?

      •  where did I say (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CupofTea

        people shouldn't vote or shouldn't involve themselves in the electoral process? The movement has leverage if it sticks to its original purpose, and by not becoming the instrument of either party's political aims.

        Think about it...in terms of the Left and other interest groups, we once were a very Progressive force for change..many of us were co-opted by the Dem party long ago, and we can see the effect of that now. We were neutered politically by the party hierarchy.

        There is good reason to work both outside and inside the current political system.

        "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

        by valadon on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:44:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well said. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valadon, Matt Z

    Divide and conquer usually (but not always) kills off the liberal wing of the Democratic party.  We saw it happen in the sixties.  Become too strident and you alienate the vast majority of voters (who actually do want to support your causes).  

    The Tea Party has split the Republican vote and they may lose an election that they thought was in the bag (after handing Obama a destroyed economy in 2009).  An economy they knew he couldn't pull together in time for the next election cycle.  

    Moderates, regular people will listen to reason, but not all-out bashing.  Give people a chance!  Have faith in your fellow countrymen!  People are doing the best they can -- supporting families and working ahrd and they get shit from all sides.  

    Libs, don't beat them over the head with your message. Talk to them.

  •  MoT, I've always been clear, I'm in our (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CupofTea, MrWebster

    President's corner.  I may not like the company he keeps.  Reality tells me I'm an outsider looking in.  I would prefer factual evidence.  "I want to believe."

  •  Confidence Men tells most of the story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrWebster

    Dan Froomkin:

    Barack Obama is  heading back onto the campaign trail, running as a champion of the middle class and even hoping to harness the Occupy movement's public anger at Wall Street.

    But the higher he soars with his populist rhetoric, the more he calls attention to the enormous gap between the promise of hope and change that he campaigned on in 2008 and the actions he has taken as president -- especially regarding the economy, which is still stagnating, and Wall Street, which remains unpunished and unbowed even after causing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    As a result, voters will inevitably be asking themselves: Who is this guy, really? Does he mean what he says? Will he do what he says? And would a second-term Obama be different?

  •  this is why i do not support ows i do like the (0+ / 0-)

    the pres has been treated in all this.. if some of the folks had gone out & voted maybe things would be better.. no obama is not perfect .. the reports comming out they ows hate him  & i support him .. the pres rec'd a raw deal all the way around.. i'm not ready to give this country to the gop to screw us futher

  •  There's alot of tweeps (0+ / 0-)

    Who claim to be anons or occupiers - but do nothing but link RW websites like biggovernment.

    These 1% fucks and their henchmen are all about misinformation.

    Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

    by meatballs on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:25:04 PM PST

  •  Dear Santa (0+ / 0-)

    Please bring DK a Bozo filter.

    You have been arguing it for quite some time.  But the fact is that the 99% doesn't agree with you.  It doesn't even come close.

    Realists do not adopt doomed tactics that have no hope of preventing the problems they see coming.

  •  Supporting Occupy & Democrats (0+ / 0-)

    I support the Occupy movement for the same reasons that I have always supported the Democratic party.  In my mind, Occupy and the Democratic party share a core goal in that they both are seeking to ensure opportunity, fairness, justice, and equality for all.  

    One is working within the system and one is working outside the system.  Each has their pluses and minuses, and neither is perfect.  Each has the ability to accomplish what the other cannot.

    I don't believe that one has to choose between supporting Occupy or the Democratic party.  It's not a one or the other proposition.  I can get involved with my local Occupation as well as be involved with my local Democratic party.  I can attend Occupy events to have my voice heard, and I can vote in elections to have my voice heard.

    I'm suspicious of anyone telling me that I must choose between Occupy and Democrats, and I am leery of those who argue that Occupy needs to turn its energy towards opposing President Obama, Democrats, and focus our attention on dismantling government.

  •  My daddy used to say... (0+ / 0-)

    That there are two kinds of Republicans, millionaires and suckers. And the GOP has learned well how to play their suckers to a T(ea). Even the Tea Party was an attempt, by the standard GOP corporate masters, to retain some of that sucker branch whom the Bush-era failures (ie, the failure of neocon policies once implemented) could easily have driven them away. And these SUCKERS are the ones that make the election of the GOP possible in the first place. Lordy knows there's not numerically enough millionaires to make that a possibility. And since the focus of the Tea Party was that Obama was a raging socialist hell-bent on destroying all that is good and sacred about being an American, it allowed their sucker wing to forget who really caused our economic decline. This has led to a near epidemic swelling of Bushnesia to take root in our country.

    And now that the Tea Party has made actual demands that, like the demands of the Religious Right decades before, the GOP and their corporate masters have no intention of implementing, the GOP need to latch on to new populist sentiments that they can harness to achieve their political objectives. Even if they have to splinter the moderate and liberal vote to do it. And that's because using dirty tricks to manipulate the democratic process by utilizing the kind of divide and conquer tactics that the elite have always used to sway support, if not for themselves, then away from their opposition, is what the GOP like to use when lies about the efficacy of their lackluster policies no longer do the trick. Hey, if it worked for the Roman Empire and the British Empire, why can't it work for the GOP?

    In the end, the best way to contend with the neocons, whose philosophies rule the GOP and whose ability to destroy groups like unions compelled the Democrats to become willing pets to corporatists the same way the GOP had become, is to deliver them the same fate to them as we did to the laissez-faire capitalists. After the laissez-faire disasters of the 1920s (that have eerie but not coincidental parallels with the issues that collapsed our economy in the 2000s) American voters virtually confined them and their philosophy to political purgatory. But for two short years under Eisenhower, who by modern standards would be considered a socialist, the GOP lost all leadership control of the Congress and Senate for over sixty years. American voters had to make sure that the last remaining remnant of laissez-faire failure and supply side stench was long gone from the Earth before they even tempted fate by allowing the GOP to have such overwhelming say over policy again. It's going to take the same kind of near permanent sanctions of neo-conservatism from the power to control policy to realign our nation's economy. Forgetting that neo-conservatism ever existed is the only way for the GOP to accept that it failed. As it stands, if the rhetoric from their Congressional Leaders and Presidential Candidates is to be believed, tax cuts and deregulations were a gleaming success. Of course, there is no evidence to support this stance unless "success" is deemed to be garnered by how few people can consolidate so much wealth (which, by neocon standards IS the very DEFINITION of successful policies).

    So since the GOP do not possess enough self-awareness to give themselves the memo about their own self-created disasters, it is time for American voters to do it. It's time for the American electorate to do with the neocons what they did to the laissez-faire losers. Kick them to the curb for so long that they become a mere footnote in the history book on fiscal failures. Make the GOP go back to the drawing board and do what they do best, devise supply side policies that destroy the whole world's economy. But make them spend decades whining about evil socialists (except for the socialism that supports their corporate backers) before they get a chance to implement them.

  •  If you're blaming Wall Street, (0+ / 0-)

    you're blaming Obama.  There's no separation.

    The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

    "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

    by Punditus Maximus on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:09:54 PM PST

Sharoney, Renee, shari, Ed in Montana, TheC, Alma, LeislerNYC, itsbenj, ogre, decembersue, Iddybud, zonk, Jeff Simpson, Geenius at Wrok, artr2, wytcld, karlpk, michael in chicago, LynChi, dsb, xynz, x, TarheelDem, ZAPatty, Doctor Who, Gustogirl, opinionated, Justina, bronte17, missLotus, 88kathy, Einsteinia, sja, highacidity, SlowNomad, mkfarkus, farmerhunt, kappelt, naperken, artebella, sidnora, dksbook, sviscusi, Quege, AZDem, NMRed, tomephil, kharma, dejavu, Joe Bacon, annan, danthrax, roseeriter, westyny, JimWilson, laughingriver, On The Bus, hoof32, liberte, riverlover, zett, Sembtex, Curt Matlock, lonespark, tomjones, xyz, valadon, rickeagle, thereisnospoon, Armand451, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, ebbinflo, Skennet Boch, Danjuma, Bluesee, CTPatriot, SherwoodB, OpherGopher, irate, Erik the Red, PBen, vgranucci, ejmw, Big River Bandido, Jersey Girl, DrFood, Bill Section 147, kefauver, myeye, Brooke In Seattle, Gary Norton, eru, jimstaro, aaraujo, LABobsterofAnaheim, Little Lulu, markdd, sunbro, Sandino, brentut5, Geekesque, Savvy813, Ginny in CO, kerplunk, coolbreeze, Lisa Lockwood, Rogneid, peacestpete, mrchips46, mightymouse, Alan Arizona, zozie, kathny, reddbierd, Reality Bites Back, noblindeye, Knucklehead, sideboth, Debbie in ME, Keone Michaels, Medium Head Boy, myboo, sherlyle, Clytemnestra, ferallike, BlueInARedState, raptavio, cookseytalbott, seefleur, Hear Our Voices, kestrel9000, ruleoflaw, KenBee, Wary, mystery2me, neecie100, DarkestHour, 4Freedom, Libby Shaw, Terminus, bleeding heart, Preston S, anninla, llbear, democracy is coming, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, BB10, fiddlingnero, Dreaming of Better Days, crystal eyes, Bernie68, bstotts, sea note, Opposite Reaction, AntKat, BentLiberal, Thinking Fella, One Pissed Off Liberal, c0wfunk, out of left field, fabucat, ninkasi23, Debs2, Dartagnan, ColoTim, bfbenn, puakev, FishOutofWater, LillithMc, Matt Z, operculum, dclawyer06, DWG, Unbozo, bnasley, malharden, Canyon Lefty, GMFORD, martyinsfo, SeaTurtle, millwood, OIL GUY, pioneer111, technolinguist, GeorgeXVIII, journeyman, Azubia, vet, on the cusp, TomP, Empower Ink, rmonroe, MKinTN, mconvente, Ms Citizen, BobBlueMass, wyvern, scooter in brooklyn, Involuntary Exile, dadadata, ozkid, elwior, Fe Bongolan, ajr111240, mikeconwell, pamelabrown, smartdemmg, pickandshovel, TokenLiberal, Jeff Y, Tam in CA, mofembot, Drewid, glendaw271, petulans, James Kresnik, qm1pooh, DixieDishrag, Karl Rover, Quilldriver, CupofTea, shortgirl, statsone, legendmn, Zappatero, clent, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, multilee, pileta, J M F, litoralis, lostinamerica, LinSea, cantelow, Mislead, Kaneblues, Partisan Progressive, Hugo101, kat68, BlueInRedCincy, CamillesDad1, member of the msm, followyourbliss, Jyrki, bfitzinAR, stevenwag, vadasz, Lacy LaPlante, Knarfc, haremoor, nancat357, Livvy5, deviant24x, jpmassar, citisven, George Pirpiris, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, smileycreek, jdsnebraska, stegro, LaughingPlanet, gramofsam1, Observerinvancouver, kjoftherock, SeattleTammy, on board 47, Polly Syllabic, Lost and Found, Travelin Dave, Simple, appledown, Eddie L, gulfgal98, Lady Libertine, paradise50, OnlyWords, DiegoUK, NYWheeler, nickrud, rja, Betty Pinson, elengul, ericlewis0, Otteray Scribe, Floande, mallyroyal, slice, Mac in Maine, BrowniesAreGood, CornSyrupAwareness, kerflooey, gauchiste, sabo33, sostos, Mistral Wind, stonedoubt, kevin k, CoExistNow, princesspat, trumpeter, tkwasny, mrsgoo, Cinnamon, Escamillo, BarackStarObama, smoothnmellow, LSmith, Keori, poliwrangler, waiting for lefty, Phil T Duck, Hayate Yagami, blue aardvark, RockyMtnLib, SoCalSal, zenox, leftykook, Metalman68, jham710, DRo, Chitown Kev, Mentatmark, SouthernLiberalinMD, BoulderStevo, grannycarol, DEMonrat ankle biter, drawingporno, IowaBiologist, jacey, hulibow, joelgp, papa monzano, Cordyc, anodnhajo, Catskill Julie, vacilando, eaglekid85va, We Won, MikeyB33, foucaultspendulum, ahumbleopinion, oldcrow, effervescent, AnnieR, 2thanks, JGibson, Horace Boothroyd III, Mike RinRI, Th0rn, Halandri, jan4insight, readerwriter, radical simplicity, Nztorg, Arahahex, MartyM, doroma, qannabbos, notdarkyet, tytalus, scilicet, ItsaMathJoke, Glen The Plumber, mumtaznepal, maf1029, Dumas EagerSeton, natfroiland, LibbyLuLu, SwedishJewfish, ForestLake, hillbrook green, DamselleFly, Dancun74, califgrrrl, Social History, poopdogcomedy

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site