There is a diary that accuses the President of "silence" on the issue of occupied wall street. This is simply a dishonest statement. Given the opportunity- when asked a question- Obama has, on multiple occasions, showed support and solidarity for the principles behind Occupy Wall Street.
A simple 2 minute Google search has found the following instances of Obama supporting the movement:
http://abcnews.go.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/...
http://thinkprogress.org/...
He said, "you are the reason I ran for office". If that doesn't show solidarity, I don't know what does.
Now you can argue that, this is not enough, and that he should make a more forceful speech and not just as a response to a question but on his own accord. You can argue that he should condemn the crackdowns. These are fine arguments to make and ones that I agree with. However, to paint him with a broad brush stroke with Republicans is outlandish.
For example, the diarist made a statement that "Our 'leaders', who have betrayed us all are poised to commit the ultimate betrayal, the final selling out of democracy and the American people." This statement follows directly the video of Obama but does not name him directly. Furthermore, the diarist's outrage against police brutality, and the "fascist bill" follow this statement.
This sort of sandwiching Obama in between statements of right wing nuttery is the same sort of dishonesty that Bush applied when he used "Iraq" and "Al-Qaeda" in the same sentence. It unfairly implies a causal link between the two.
Furthermore, that Obama will veto this bill is a huge deal, and a huge win for liberals and contradicts the idea that Obama betrayed us, but it barely gets a nod by the diarist.
Just to refresh everyone's memory of what Obama has done to fight Wall Street, here is a statement by future-President Elizabeth Warren about him:
"We would not have a consumer agency if not for President Obama... he signed into law a bill that made this consumer agency exist and as strong and independent way. "
The fact that Obama openly and publicly undermined the power of Wall Street with CFPA (at least a little bit) flies against the logic that he would secretly support crackdowns in order to cowtow to the same crowd. His public actions should be more defining than any statements he can make, and if anything, his actions with the CFPA and encouraging Warren are in support of our movement, while his statements may be lacking.
The ironic thing is that I AGREE with the Diarist's outrage against police brutality. I AGREE with the diarist that Obama should speak out against the crackdowns. Some have argued that Obama should not condemn the crackdown because that would politicize the movement. I respectfully disagree with these people.
But unlike the diarist's response, disagreeing with the President must be done in a meaningful, honest way, while acknowledging all that he has done to fight for our side.
My main fear with these sort of diaries is that all the gains we have had under Obama such as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (the very thing the diarist is probably fighting for) will be gone when a Republican President repeals it because liberals sat on their hands rather than reelect Obama. The method of disagreement that I propose has multiple benefits. It allows our side to get more of what we want, without losing what we have already gained. It allows our main point to be addressed directly rather than having an irrelevant point such as tone take center stage. It also allows us to connect with moderates who like calmer rather than more bombastic types.
UPDATE: The previous title "A boot on the president's throat" was made simply to associate my diary with the diarist without directly naming him as I know that can be HR'ed. I have changed the diary title to better reflect that. Unfortunately it is not so creative!