Skip to main content

Last night, Bill Maher had a critical message for Occupy Wall Street, now that they're revving up again for summer action.  His message was that Occupy needs to start mobilizing in different ways to really force change, and he looks to the Tea Party as an example of what Occupy needs to do.

And finally, New Rule: Now that summer is upon us, the Occupy Wall Street movement must think of a more effective form of protest than camping.  To be considered a real movement, it has to start moving asses off the streets, and into the voting booth.  (audience applause)

Occupy's motto is "The only solution is world revolution."  OK... but what about setting our sights a little lower, like taking back Wisconsin?

....

Here's a thought.  Instead of organizing interstate hootenannies, maybe it's time for Occupy Wall Street to actually participate in the American political process.  (audience applause)  That means boring stuff, like canvassing neighborhoods, raising money, running candidates for office, manning phone banks, and making a baby with John Edwards.

....

Three years ago, the Tea Party was just a few hundred retired diabetics angry at blacks and gays for making them feel old.  But now, now they have 62 seats in Congress.  And before John Boehner makes any decision, he first has to go outside to the National Mall, and ask the former mental patient dressed as George Washington for permission.

And that's because the Tea Party took it to the next level.  They mobilized.  They put on a nice shirt and their best teeth... (audience laughter), and they got out there, and they drafted candidates, registered voters, and did all the stuff that when the left does it, it's called "using the methods of Saul Alinsky".

The Occupy movement could do the same thing for the Democrats.  In fact, we need Occupy to be our Tea Party.  An unwavering bloc that will force things to the left, as relentlessly as a new pair of jeans with a tight inseam.

A solid bloc of far-left intractable Democratic Congressmen, who Obama can point to and say, "You know, I'd love to renew your Bush-era tax cuts, but I have to deal with these crazy motherfuckers."  (wild audience applause)

Video and full transcript below the fold.



And finally, New Rule: Now that summer is upon us, the Occupy Wall Street movement must think of a more effective form of protest than camping.  To be considered a real movement, it has to start moving asses off the streets, and into the voting booth.  (audience applause)

Occupy's motto is "The only solution is world revolution."  OK... but what about setting our sights a little lower, like taking back Wisconsin?  Now, last fall, I must admit that I too got caught up in the Occupy Wall Street excitement.  I went down there, I chanted, I held a sign, I shared some sacred herb with members of a drumming circle.  But strangely enough, it turns out that having a sleepover in the park for four months didn't cause Wall Street to crumble.

And that's not because Occupy didn't have the right message.  It did: that America's wealth is increasingly in the hands of a tiny kleptocratic priesthood of finance cowboys and the politicians they buy, protected by a free fire zone of rules they wrote themselves, feeding on the republic from within, like a transcontinental tapeworm the size of Route 66.  Sure, I'll give you that.  It's just, I think it was Gandhi who said, "The park?  Again?  Really?"

I mean, no offense, but we tried the whole "sit outside until we get our way" thing, and it went over like Paris Hilton's music career.  Because, what does taking over a park really achieve, besides forcing anonymous gay sex back into the bathhouses?  (gives pointed look at John Waters)  (audience laughter and applause)

And besides, the people who recently bought Facebook stock, they need some place to sleep now.

If you think I'm being too mean about this, go to the Occupy website.  It says that their big plan this year is to have a national gathering on July 4th, and I quote, "to facilitate a visioning process designed to allow all voices to be heard while allowing repeat visions to organically rise to the top".  I don't know what the fuck that means.

But on July 5th, the Occupy Wall Street "Guitarmy", yes, a guitar army....  (shocked audience laughter as Bill facepalms)  They promise to march from Philadelphia to New York, singing folk songs.  So take that, Wells Fargo!  You foreclose on my house, I'm gonna hit you with 187 choruses of "Tom Dooley".

Here's a thought.  Instead of organizing interstate hootenannies, maybe it's time for Occupy Wall Street to actually participate in the American political process.  (audience applause)  That means boring stuff, like canvassing neighborhoods, raising money, running candidates for office, manning phone banks, and making a baby with John Edwards.

I know it's a lot harder work than learning the chords to "Kumbaya", but it seems to be working for the Tea Party.  I mean, think of it.  Three years ago, the Tea Party was just a few hundred retired diabetics angry at blacks and gays for making them feel old.  But now, now they have 62 seats in Congress.  And before John Boehner makes any decision, he first has to go outside to the National Mall, and ask the former mental patient dressed as George Washington for permission.

And that's because the Tea Party took it to the next level.  They mobilized.  They put on a nice shirt and their best teeth... (audience laughter), and they got out there, and they drafted candidates, registered voters, and did all the stuff that when the left does it, it's called "using the methods of Saul Alinsky".

The Occupy movement could do the same thing for the Democrats.  In fact, we need Occupy to be our Tea Party.  An unwavering bloc that will force things to the left, as relentlessly as a new pair of jeans with a tight inseam.

A solid bloc of far-left intractable Democratic Congressmen, who Obama can point to and say, "You know, I'd love to renew your Bush-era tax cuts, but I have to deal with these crazy motherfuckers."  (wild audience applause)

All right, that's our show!

I know there's been quite a bit of discussion here and elsewhere already about Occupy's role going forward.  Even some panels at Netroots Nation (sigh, while I'm stuck back here in Los Angeles...).  But it is true that just a year after the Tea Party started, they were running people who proudly called themselves "Tea Party candidates" for federal and state offices all over the country.  And they won.  It's been almost a year since the start of the movement in New York.  Are there any people running as "Occupy Wall Street candidates"?

Bill's last line is especially poignant.  Boehner's gone back on deal after deal because he cannot reason with the Tea Party on anything that involves raising taxes and revenue.  There is no equivalent on the left, and look how much that's hurting us as a country now.

Originally posted to BruinKid on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Electronic America: Progressives Film, music & Arts Group.

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

  •  Tip Jar (303+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    webranding, doroma, DRo, TexMex, Horace Boothroyd III, Cinnamon, gramofsam1, nyceve, jayden, dkmich, citizenx, maryabein, annieli, Getreal1246, Its a New Day, reginahny, kirbybruno, Smoh, Matt Z, Carol in San Antonio, Avilyn, MarEng, rmonroe, 3goldens, taonow, Statusquomustgo, azrefugee, Mistral Wind, OrangeMike, jalenth, PackLeader89, Quantumlogic, Egalitare, dance you monster, crystal eyes, FrY10cK, TofG, MartyM, Dem 724, banjolele, filkertom, SaintC, Velocity, PsychoSavannah, tardis10, howabout, JoanMar, Castine, fcvaguy, oxfdblue, muddy boots, Superpole, leonard145b, willynel, mslat27, Iberian, ChemBob, Shockwave, manyamile, Kurt Sperry, Little Flower, LamontCranston, CanadaGoose, hyperstation, sunny skies, Heart of the Rockies, artr2, SeaTurtle, JanL, Paddy999, sfarkash, arizonablue, Only Needs a Beat, Texknight, Sylv, jacey, prettygirlxoxoxo, Steven D, artebella, progressiveinga, ruleoflaw, undersiege, highacidity, greenbell, California06, Joe Willy, Catte Nappe, Dopeman, LaFeminista, Pescadero Bill, FG, TracieLynn, Captain C, hayden, GenXBadger, lineatus, zerelda, ER Doc, Texdude50, IndieGuy, LaughingPlanet, OrganizedCrime, ichibon, Debs2, OnlyWords, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, SteelerGrrl, rcnewton, Sybil Liberty, dradams, implicate order, Brooke In Seattle, Hey338Too, tin woodswoman, smartdemmg, The Hindsight Times, Gary Norton, magnetics, klompendanser, BlueInRedCincy, cosette, Stripe, rhetoricus, bluestatedem84, OIL GUY, Debbie in ME, burnt out, Panacea Paola, coolbreeze, AgentOfProgress, pixxer, jgnyc, RatCitySqueaker, Preston S, noemie maxwell, Loudoun County Dem, UtahLibrul, rscopes, HappyinNM, The Angry Architect, isabelle hayes, bnasley, Bud Fields, petulans, Quicklund, alnep, Demeter Rising, wasatch, thomask, Dem Beans, evilstorm, bibble, journeyman, Michael James, joanil, high uintas, TayTay, elliott, jethrock, MJ via Chicago, DeadB0y, mr crabby, llbear, caul, Son of a Cat, edrie, kefauver, on the cusp, Doctor Who, Jim P, adrianrf, sgary, Noodles, koNko, ninkasi23, Unduna, bythesea, dejavu, SoCalSal, seamus mcdooby, blue jersey mom, cassandraX, copymark, Radiowalla, ColoTim, rockhound, fixxit, begone, greycat, MJB, dle2GA, EdinStPaul, cacamp, elengul, tapestry, geebeebee, LillithMc, freelunch, katiekitteh, Themistoclea, sephius1, Sapere aude, surfbird007, sockpuppet, Sun Tzu, happymisanthropy, zorp, KayCeSF, Aquarius40, madmsf, sideboth, historys mysteries, kevinpdx, CarolinW, absdoggy, ord avg guy, kjoftherock, Russgirl, Keone Michaels, expatjourno, MeToo, StellaRay, Wolf10, HeyMikey, Happy Days, greengemini, AZ RedWingsFan, Alumbrados, blueoregon, prgsvmama26, revsue, stevej, Delilah, emelyn, uciguy30, claude, DeanNC, sviscusi, ozsea1, vigilant meerkat, lissablack, Lujane, Irons33, chicating, Jujuree, real world chick, superfly, exiledfromTN, splashy, G2geek, tidalwave1, maggiejean, krllos, Sam I Am, Kay Observer2, indres, Hedwig, Tool, BachFan, DaleA, too young to give up, LinSea, yorkiedoglover, GayHillbilly, spunhard, Sychotic1, Tyler R, JClarkPDX, LeftyEngineer, yoduuuh do or do not, liberaldemdave, DianeNYS, ladyjames, Williston Barrett, elwior, Dillonfence, 207wickedgood, gizmo59, debaseTheBase, Mber, zizi, mconvente, helpImdrowning, Floande, dRefractor, Crashing Vor, Sandy on Signal, Christin, JTinDC, xaxnar, Dragon5616, Revy, ATFILLINOIS, SoCaliana, marshstars, Little Lulu, jabney, Albanius, Glinda, Democrats Ramshield, PBen, legendmn, splintersawry
        •  Absolutely. That's the thing (73+ / 0-)

          about real grassroots organizing. They usually don't have any money.

          It's hard to get people motivated to organize when THEY have to do the work and raise the funds. It's easy for billionaires to manufacture rage and put out propaganda to attract crazy people onto buses that are paid for by billionaires.

          Republicans are diabolical and formidable opponents. They mutilated our asses with that teabagger stuff. They can effortlessly pay for things that grassroots organizers have to sweat for.

          "It's not enough to acknowledge privilege. You have to resist." -soothsayer

          by GenXangster on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:13:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Frankly I find his (23+ / 0-)

          tone to be in the tenor of Very Serious Speak. If I have time to write a response to this I will. All the panels at netroots on occupy has been superficial and felt like the discussion did not raise past a 9th grade level.

          •  How many of them, so far, have included (11+ / 0-)

            persons arrested during occupations?

            That is to say, persons with any authority to speak to the matter?

            "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

            by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:03:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and how many of them attacked, taunted, threw (24+ / 0-)

              things at the police, broke windows, started dumpster fires?

              and how many of them camped out endlessly on public property and private property?

              OR - did they use the threat of using their votes to put up candidates and then do it?

              i hear the occupy movement constantly say it is not for any political candidate and they are not about "voting" (process corrupt, blah blah blah).  had the tea party made such statements, it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever.

              think about it.

              the power of the vote.

              they have it - occupy doesn't... by it's own design and "mission".

              •  Amen! (10+ / 0-)

                The Occupy Movement has willed itself into impotence by the very actions that you describe.  What started as an energetic, grass roots movement has turned itself into a public disgrace.

                It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                by Radiowalla on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:47:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Are you now arguing that any significant (7+ / 0-)

                proportion of those arrest while trying to do something more meaningfull than post their favorite pictures of their latest political celbrity crush were in fact throwing things at the police?

                I'd say you know absolutely nothing about Occupy and are attacking a movement you know nothing about and aren't capable of understanding.

                It's not about picking between rich assholes who care nothing for 99% of us.  

                That's what this site is for, and that's fine, but that's not why Occupy exists.

                "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:57:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  A very large percentage of those arrested (0+ / 0-)

                  Were legitimately arrested for violating clear and undeniable laws.

                  And almost all of those who were arrested were told, multiple times before they were arrested that they would BE arrested if they didn't cease doing what it was that they were doing.

                  There are very few "innocent victims" among those who were arrested.

                  Were most of them throwing things at cops? Of course not. Does that mean that they weren't doing ANYTHING wrong? Of course not.

                  Way, way, way too many people think that simply PEACEFULLY protesting somehow makes one immune from possible arrest. It doesn't. You still can't legally camp overnight in areas where overnight camping isn't allowed. You can't legally occupy a bank lobby after the bank manager tells you to leave, even if you are a bank customer!  And you can't "peacefully protest" down a city street when  you haven't been given a parade permit without risking being arrested for that behavior.

                  •  And there we are. 700 people led onto a bridge by (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    aliasalias, triv33

                    cops were arrested....and it was "legitimate".

                    DollyMadison has been allowed back to speak.

                    "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                    by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:43:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It didn't actually happen that way (0+ / 0-)

                      That's the dishonest spin some put on that event. But it didn't happen that way, and, as I already said, they had been warned multiple times BEFORE that happened that they were illegally parading and they needed to disperse.

                      In addition, people have been educated for YEARS that, without a parade permit, you can NOT block a city street the way they did.

                      Those people voluntarily took over the road. The cops didn't TELL THEM to walk on the street. They weren't forced to block vehicular traffic on that bridge - they chose to. Just because the cops didn't stop them until they had walked a ways onto the bridge doesn't mean that they were unfairly entrapped by the cops - no cop made ANYONE walk onto the road surface.

                      No one was "led" onto the bridge.

                      I understand that the FACTS destroy your CT here - too bad, so sad.

                      And I haven't been "allowed back". I never left. There was an error that was quickly fixed. I'm the one who got Joieau banned due to reporting her multiple examples of offensive behavior, including spamming this site, insulting someone unfairly, and pushing CT's on multiple occasions.

                      In their march north from Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan — headquarters for the last two weeks of a protest movement against what demonstrators call inequities in the economic system — they had stayed on the sidewalks, forming a long column of humanity penned in by officers on scooters.

                      Where the entrance to the bridge narrowed their path, some marchers, including organizers, stuck to the generally agreed-upon route and headed up onto the wooden walkway that runs between and about 15 feet above the bridge’s traffic lanes.

                      But about 20 others headed for the Brooklyn-bound roadway, said Christopher T. Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union, who accompanied the march. Some of them chanted “take the bridge.” They were met by a handful of high-level police supervisors, who blocked the way and announced repeatedly through bullhorns that the marchers were blocking the roadway and that if they continued to do so, they would be subject to arrest.

                      There were no physical barriers, though, and at one point, the marchers began walking up the roadway with the police commanders in front of them – seeming, from a distance, as if they were leading the way. The Chief of Department Joseph J. Esposito, and a horde of other white-shirted commanders, were among them.

                      Cops being in an area is not equivalent to them leading the way.

                      Yet again, as so often has happened, and as I accurately described above, OWS people misportray, often with the intent to deceive, what happened at an event. Naomi Wolf did that last year, claiming that there's no legit reason for her to have been arrested on a sidewalk - but there was. Groups can, and do, all the time, reserve public sidewalks for their own usage for short periods of time so long as there are other routes for pedestrians to utilize.  When the Oscars happen in LA, for example, no pedestrian can claim to have the right to walk down that side of the street where the red carpet is - it's blocked, temporarily, and is reopened the next day for public usage. The same thing happened to Naomi Wolf, yet she asserted multiple times that there was NO RIGHT for the city to give a group the right to restrict usage of that portion of a city block. She was either really ignorant or she was lying - and when the facts were pointed out to her, she ignored that correction - which leads me to believe that she was being intentionally dishonest.

                      And the same is repeatedly true for you and people like you, Jesse, and people like Joieau here on this site. There's no basis upon which to claim that protesters were "led" by cops onto that bridge. Those protesters who led others onto the bridge were repeatedly warned to NOT walk on the road surface over the bridge. The NYC cops had repeatedly told them to stay on areas where pedestrians are supposed to be. They chose to ignore those instructions. They aren't innocent victims.

                      And amazingly enough, that's EXACTLY what I said in my comment above.

                      And you couldn't refute a thing I wrote, and so you make a baseless personal attack, as though that's a legit substitute for a real argument.

                      Get a clue - it's not.

                      •  And what do follow-ups tell us? (0+ / 0-)

                        They tell us that a small group of people chose to walk on the roadway. They were told to not do so.

                        The cops had NOT fully blocked off that section of roadway to keep people from walking up it, as people had to go across that section of the roadway to get to the walking bridge across the Brooklyn Bridge.

                        And so there were a few cops, without barricades, directing people to walk across that section of roadway that led to the actual bridge in order to get onto the pedestrian walkway. When the small group of protesters decided it was "THEIR BRIDGE", and started walking up it, cops repeatedly told them to stay off. And that message got to some of the protesters. One has been reported to have told those following that they were NOT to walk across the bridge.

                        (a) protester up ahead turned around and fired back a message that everyone needed to turn around and get on the walking path to the left.
                        And the idea that these protesters were "LED" onto the bridge itself? Total bullshit. What happened was that few cops who were standing there quickly became overwhelmed with protesters who disregarded law enforcement officials demands that they stay off the road surface. Those cops fell back, and walked ahead of the surging crowd to avoid being surrounded by protesters. That's not equivalent to them LEADING the protesters. Not everyone who walks in front of someone else is LEADING them.

                        The people at the front of the pack were CLEARLY aware that they needed to turn around, and they didn't. Sure, some of those at the back of the pack weren't well-informed. That does NOT equal the cops entrapping them. It equals those protesters at the head of the group guilty of leading those followers astray. It's not the cops' fault.

                        Malcolm Harris, a blogger who was on the march, and who was among those arrested, said in a post on Twitter: "They tried to stop us, absolutely did not want us on the motorway, had no expectation we would take it.
                        This is what the FACTS show us. I understand it ruins your narrative. Too bad, so sad.
              •  what an ignorant comment (4+ / 0-)

                I can't believe this gets 17 recs. pathetic.

                Think of me what you will, I've got a little space to fill. - Tom Petty

                by itsbenj on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:46:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This is what this site is now (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  triv33

                  Kos himself is getting attacked for saying that people have every right to be critical of the assasination program.

                  "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                  by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:44:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yeah, people have always (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ATFILLINOIS

                    gone after Kos here, while others just go with his flow. I just think it's silly that a regular member here things there are a statistically significant number of people out of all of the people who in one way or another participated with OWS who were directly violent towards police. well, it's more sinister than silly, I guess. there's just this weird total acceptance of the idea that a right-wing protest means any police coverage that does get assigned are just buddy buddy with them. a left-wing protest is treated as a riot in the making, just no matter what. and all it takes is the cheapest of cheap propaganda to poison the well even here. it's annoying that the sound-bite mentality is so strong here, that's for sure!

                    Think of me what you will, I've got a little space to fill. - Tom Petty

                    by itsbenj on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:56:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  The three that I attended (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              liberaldemdave, gooderservice

              had 0.

          •  I agree with you 100% (29+ / 0-)

            Often I feel as though I'm the only person in the world who thinks the OWS tactics have been brilliant. Fuck the hippie punching, there were all kinds of people marching and occupying all over America. Many of those people had jobs and worked in shifts.
            And the message was clear: the game is rigged. The rich are looting this country of it's money, its potential, and its heritage. It is wrong and anti-American.
            It's good that they didn't try to set a detailed agenda, or submit a plan to be torn apart on right-wing radio and cable news shows. It's good, because they were simply priming the pump, getting Americans, who feel the country slipping away, on the same page as far as income inequality and straight-up public corruption go.
            They changed the public conversation. Are we still obsessed with deficits? Some of us are. But it is no longer taboo to note that the very rich in this country have corrupted our institutions and poisoned the public sphere for their own enrichment.
            This is the way movement happens. It's very disorganized nature, belittled by the likes of Bill Maher all the way to Rush Limbaugh, has been, in my opinion, far more effective than the tactics they seem to prefer. If OWS goes the way Maher suggests, it becomes another Americans Elect, instead of an impetus for change.

            Warning: Erwin Schroedinger will kill you like a cat in a box. Maybe.

            by strandedlad on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:22:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OWS changed the national conversation. (18+ / 0-)

              Brilliantly. But now it must change the electorate itself. Show me ONE movement that changed the world without changing the will of politicians first.

              •  lots of ways of changing the will of politicians (7+ / 0-)

                ...without participating in the political process, as the diary is advocating.

                Saul Alinsky wrote a whole book about it. The Arab Spring is a great example. The color-bloc revolutions in ex-USSR nations usually provoked their governments to collapse before trying ballot-box solutions.

                I'm sure people can think of a dozen reasons why those examples don't apply here and now. That is the problem with history - only people with poor attention to detail think it truly repeats. If you're always looking backwards for examples to follow you're going to get tripped up by some asshole who is looking for specific ways to ruin your specific day.

                "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                by efraker on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:04:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Taking down politicians isn't being in control (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek, boudi08, helpImdrowning

                  As wonderful as the Arab Spring has been it could still be crushed. If Alinski were completely correct the Neocons would have been in the dustbin if history ten years ago. You can only do so much from the outside. I tried that for an decade and a half before I realized there is no changing the system without subverting it from the inside. I've seen
                  More change since 2004 then in twenty years before that when Howard Dean inspired activists to start taking over the party. Change the people running the party.

                  •  moving the goalposts... (6+ / 0-)

                    You said "Show me ONE movement that changed the world without changing the will of politicians first". I gave you two recent movements and a book on how to start your own.

                    I've seen more change since 2004 then in twenty years before that [because] Howard Dean inspired activists to start taking over the party.
                    I was with Dean to the walls... but I've been involved in DNC politics for 15 years now, and I really feel like things are getting more conservative not less.

                    You can't deny that Nixon signed more left-wing legislation into law than Obama has. Nixon's health care proposal was more progressive than Obama's federalized Romneycare.

                    When Dennis Kucinich got primary'd by Marcy Kaptur the conservadem this year, who got more DNC backing? And who won?

                    "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                    by efraker on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:39:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, it is. (4+ / 0-)

                    They don't want to be taken down.

                    If you keep taking them down whenever they abuse or betray you, they start to get the message.

                    If Alinski were completely correct the Neocons would have been in the dustbin if history ten years ago
                    Your conclusion would only follow if we agreed that Alinski's advice had actually been followed by those who oppose the Neo-Cons.

                    It hasn't been, here.  

                    In countries where his advice has been followed, it has worked to at least some extent.

                    "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                    by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:59:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

                Occupy won the first battle: people around the country are talking about income inequality.  They also did some great work in attempting to divorce Americans from the big banks; among them may be the BoA slayer.

                Now it's time to fight the third battle.  I hope that they choose wisely and well.

                "Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage." -- Lucille Ball

                by Yamaneko2 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:48:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't understand your logic. (0+ / 0-)

                  They rejected the methods of A and tried B and achieved better results than those applying A; therefore they should now reject B and go back to A. Please explain how this makes any sense.

                  •  Actually, I was just listing battles won. (0+ / 0-)

                    You fight whatever battles advance the strategy, on grounds as favorable to yourselves as possible.  When you win, you need not fight the same battles again.  The landing on Normandy's beaches on June 6, 1944 was a great victory; a second mass amphibious landing on August 13, 1944 at Normandy would have been a waste.  Sherman marched through Georgia in the autumn of 1864;  it would have wasted his time and army to march back to Atlanta, and then again to Savannah during the spring of 1865.

                    "Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage." -- Lucille Ball

                    by Yamaneko2 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:51:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  And the cons STILL WIN (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rhauenstein, Cinnamon, G2geek, duufus

              The MSM and the 1% (is there a difference?) can label OWS as a "bunch of DFH" or "very confused (read "stupid") young people" with a few "failed communists and anarchists" mixed in and the labels will stick.  OWS might have made people talk about the 99%/1% divide, but we have to face the fact that the dialog has only polarized the electorate more, and the OWS and Liberals are not winning the arguments.  We can discuss the reason for that until we're blue in the face, but it appears that the nearly unlimited funding on the con side really does influence public opinion.

            •  You are not alone (9+ / 0-)
              Often I feel as though I'm the only person in the world who thinks the OWS tactics have been brilliant.
              Comparing overage, sponsored, racist, welfare hogs to penniless, idealist, young students seeking justice for the poor working class that the Democrats have abandoned is ludicrous.

              Bill Maher is part of the 1% or 0.1% and can view matters from a great height.

              Best,  Terry

        •  They accomplished the aims of their (11+ / 0-)

          financial backers, not their own aims.

          Or, are we back on a gold standard?

          "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

          by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:01:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  they accomplished their aims by (14+ / 0-)

            voting.

            it really IS that simple - and i truly hope that those in occupy will realize that.

            IF the occupy movement put it's shoulders to the stone to re-elect obama and the dems and they were the deciding percentage, in the NEXT election, that power would be magnified considerably.  they would be a "voting block" in the same way unions were (and why walker, et. al., so desperately want to break UP the unions!)

            voting means power. period.

            •  yeah (11+ / 0-)

              like we've never tried that before.

              Voting ALONE will not cure the learned helplessness of the Democratic Party.

              all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

              by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:42:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  nothing less than everything is truly sufficient. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gramofsam1, GMFORD, edrie, DollyMadison

                Voting by itself isn't enough.  Boycotts by themselves aren't enough.  Protests by themselves aren't enough.  But put all of those things together, do them relentlessly, and they add up to more than enough.  

                "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:40:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I stipulate (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW

                  1) whatever tasks the Democratic Party is currently good at doing, it will not get better at by bringing OWS inside the Democratic Party tent.

                  2) whatever tasks the Democratic Party sucks at doing, OWS can do better from outside the Democratic Party than from inside.

                  3) therefore a close alignment between OWS and the Democratic Party will achieve little.

                  all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

                  by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:43:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    edrie, annecros, ladyjames, G2geek

                    that for it to work, it has to SCARE Democratic politicians. They need to fear for their jobs like the Republicans are scare of the tea party.

                    •  Republicans aren't scared of the Tea Party. (0+ / 0-)

                      They're scared of the Koch Brothers wallets.

                      "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                      by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:38:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  jesse (0+ / 0-)

                        you seem to be missing something important here. that they are controlled by money does not mean that their votes have no effect on republican politicians. they are what was mobilized by money. they are the money turned into votes, which has moved the republicans further to the right.

                        you are trying to take two compatible ideas (money, tea party votes) and are attempting to say it's either one or the other. well no, it's both, and in fact they reinforce each other.

                        •  The money controls the votes. (0+ / 0-)

                          You seem to have missed Wisconsin.

                          Advertising works.  That's the real world.

                          The Tea Party is a bad joke that couldn't turn out a quarter million people on its biggest "Day of Action", even with numbers padded by long-time tax day protestors who were not Tea Party.

                          Are you telling me that the Republican Party is terrified of a quarter million voters spread out over 50 states?

                          You have to learn to tell when the Media Trusts are playing you.

                          "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                          by JesseCW on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:21:38 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  please read my comments more carefully (0+ / 0-)

                            I am saying that the money controls the votes - and those votes then pull the republicans to the right. this is in addition to money going directly to the politicians. the votes pull them to the right.

                            and yes, I AM telling you that republicans are terrified of those votes. they keep losing their jobs because of those votes.

                            there's a big point here, and that's a small but dedicated and vocal community can pull politicians if they are willing to "vote out their own". yes, on the right they are mobilized by money, but the mobilization itself is doing much of the pulling. if the left can mobilize without money it could have a similar effect.

                  •  your major misunderstanding of the political (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    G2geek

                    reality is to think that you or any organization can"do better from the outside the democratic party than from the inside".

                    can you or your organization write legislation?  can you PASS legislation?  nope. only congress and state congresses can do that - with the exception of the states that have initiative processes... and we all know how THAT works out, don't we.

                    until occupy realizes that it is only from within that change can come, they will not realize their goals.

                    •  and/both. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      edrie, WB Reeves, gramofsam1

                      It's not about "only" from within, or "only" from without: it's both.

                      And best of all is when "both" are well-coordinated.  When one branch of Occupy is playing "nice cop" with the local party organization, and another branch is playing "tough cop" with the threat of angry protests.  

                      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                      by G2geek on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:54:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  yep. it's called working together instead of (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        G2geek, DollyMadison, gramofsam1

                        working against each other - and having a united front to work AGAINST republicans!

                        •  People who actually achieve something (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          edrie, happymisanthropy

                          are motivated by deeper drives than mere hatred of whoever they define as "other" this week.

                          Merely beating the Republicans achieves nothing.  We proved that in 2008.

                          We have to actually be for something, not just pitching hatred of a group of people.

                          "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                          by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:40:13 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  jesse, we totally agree on this - but we also (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gramofsam1

                            have to keep in focus that if those "others" get into office, being for something won't matter because we won't have the leverage or power to change anything, no matter how much we push.

                            i think that most of us here are for the same things - it is just how we approach the problems that differs.

                            i am hoping that we are able to resolve those differences soon so that we can do the really hard work of actually making change happen.

                    •  since when? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MindRayge

                      the new deal was driven by forces outside the Democratic Party.  Ditto the civil rights movement.  Ditto Dan Choi chaining himself to the white house fence.  

                      The history of progress in the twentieth century is the history of forces outside the Democratic Party forcing Democrats to do things they didn't want to do.

                      all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

                      by happymisanthropy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:36:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I must disagree. (6+ / 0-)

              IF OWS put up, and got behind OWS candidates, THEN  they would be a power to be reckoned with.  What has been clear for years is that simply getting behind and working for whatever party that comes closest to your beliefs DOES NOT bring about the change you're looking for.  If OWS wants the changes to happen, they really have to BE THE CHANGE.

              •  they would be the "nader" party and ensure that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                live2learn

                a republican got into office.

                your strategy was tried - and look what it got us... george w. bush.

                now if the ows candidates were running within the democratic party (sorry, but the reality is that there are only two parties viable), then perhaps change could happen.

                but for that to happen, occupiers have to commit to voting, not standing outside mic checking themselves.

                the old adage  "singing to the choir" here applies.

                political power starts at the grassroots and ends at the ballot box.

                •  so true, so true (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  edrie

                  I was so excited about occupy until...well nothing and thats the point.
                  Changing conversation is fine but reality  has to change not just talk.

                •  Bush staged a coup and cowards who didn't (0+ / 0-)

                  want to confront the hijacking of democracy (small d) itself still scream NADDERRRRRRRR!!!! at the drop of a hat a decade later rather than fact the cold hard facts.

                  There was a coup, and they watched it and they knew, and they did nothing.

                  "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                  by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:41:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yes, there WAS a coup - but that coup could NOT (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gramofsam1

                    have happened without nader's complicity.

                    he laughed about taking money from the republicans.  he is a cynical bastard who doesn't care about the damage he's done.

                    for that i will never forgive him.

                    i remember the early nader - the good he did - then his ego outgrew his mission.  

                    as for calling me a "coward" (which, if you don't realize - or perhaps do realize - you just did), you couldn't be further from the truth.

                    do you think i enjoy constantly battling people who share the same views as i hold?  do you think this is "fun"?  do you think that a "coward" would constantly waste endless hours of a life that is edging closer to being over out of ignorance over those "hard cold facts".

                    the hard cold facts are that had nader not deliberately acted as a spoiler in 2000, had nader not deliberately lied when he said there was no difference between the parties, had nader not put his own megliomania over the good of this nation, we would have had a president who was environmentally proactive, how supported liberal/progressive views and we would have not have been dragged into two wars, massive debt, deregulation, corporate giveaways and more.

                    to deny the damage done by nader's deliberate attempt (and success) at derailing this nation (by his own admission, that was his goal - to destroy the system), we would be in a very different nation right now.

                    you can't escape those facts any more than the rest of this nation can.

                    to deny THOSE facts is to deliberately distort reality.

            •  They did *NOT* get what they wanted. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              triv33, gooderservice, ladyjames

              Go talk to them.

              They wanted the Fed disbanded.  They wanted the bailouts to end.  They wanted banks with negative balance sheets to implode.

              They wanted the end of the IRS.

              They got NONE of these.

              "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

              by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:53:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They've moved (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                edrie, annecros, ladyjames, gramofsam1

                the republicans to the right. That's getting something, and that something is important (and bad).

                •  They've served others whose goals (0+ / 0-)

                  were not their own.

                  They've "moved" nothing.  They've been used as an excuse by bought and sold politicians, who want you focused on silly bastards in goofy hats instead of on six figure checks and pay for play.

                  Cash has moved the Republicans (and the Democrats) to the right.

                  Not the Teabaggers.

                  "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                  by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:37:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  they've gotten (0+ / 0-)

                    safety net cuts on the table. they've gotten lots of abortion restrictions. they got the deficit to be the most important thing in politicians' minds (at least until occupy). they got the republicans to get closer to defaulting on the debt. and so on.

                    you are correct about their paymasters, sure. that doesn't mean that it didn't cause some change (for the worse, of course). the rank and file GOP representatives are more worried that legions of right-wing voters will choose somebody to their right and have thus themselves moved to the right.

              •  what they HAVE done is effectively shut down (0+ / 0-)

                government - all the while, drawing hefty paychecks with health benefits!

          •  judging from the late-night radio ads... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            indres

            .... a lot of people are out there "converting their IRAs to gold!"

            Hopefully those scams fleece a lot more righties than middle-roaders.  About that, one can say, perhaps there is some justice after all:-)

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:38:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You mean Koch with lots of $$$ was effective. The (0+ / 0-)

          tea party is not a grassroots movement. I'm not sure it ever was.

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

          by CTMET on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:16:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  NO (11+ / 0-)

        the Teabaggers are against corporate welfare. The Koch's and their lackey servants in congress are in favor of this.

        we can give them some credit for that.

        "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

        by Superpole on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:25:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Teabagger rank and file get no credit (18+ / 0-)

          for being the actors in the play which effectively made the country believe that they were some kind of organized, valid, political force.

          They were a bunch of rubes, suckered in by the thought of having their fifteen minutes on the corporate media teevee stations. Paid for like guys like the Koch Brothers and Time Warner (who also owns stuff like CNN and....wait for it...HBO).

          Unencumbered by structure and rule meant to effectively govern millions and millions of people living together on a very large continent in this world declared "The United States", ie. a civilization; things like truth in reporting and campaign finance laws and....well, the Constitution, these rubes have let themselves be used to help foster divisions in this nation, the likes which haven't been seen since the mid-1800s.

          The difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy is that to be a part of Occupy, you can't go around telling the world that and expect to actually be elected in races financed by the Big Money in this country.

          To suggest anything else is a fucking strawman of epic proportions.  

          Gawd, why do so many people here think Bill Maher is on our side? He's not.
           

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:23:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The TP was assimilated by the Neocons (5+ / 0-)

            They took a grassroots movement and bought it up. And WTF does educating people and getting people to vote for progressives have to do with becoming a part of Big Money? Do you think protests will bring down Big Money???

            •  The TP was created by the Neocons (7+ / 0-)

              They financed it from the git-go and it poisoned the well of real grassroots movement in this country.  

              Do you think protests will bring down Big Money???
              Not unless it gets on teevee.

              And do we see that? No, we don't. Instead we see guys like Bill Maher lecturing us, from the comfort of their Big Money-owned studios.

              So you'll have to pardon me if I'm not taken in...

              It is time to #Occupy Media.

              by lunachickie on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:10:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um.... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aquarius40, gzodik, Delilah, gramofsam1

                Bill Maher puts his money where his mouth is.   He donated a million bucks to the Obama campaign.   I sincerely salute him for that.  And wonder where you are coming from with your attitude toward him.

                Real Time is a potent megaphone for cogent, progressive agendas.   I never miss a show.  Thank you, HBO.

                "I'm glad I don't know how it feels to vote to withhold basic human rights from someone else." DavidW-DKos

                by sockpuppet on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:42:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well yeah but (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lunachickie, JesseCW, liberaldemdave

                  look at where his mouth is

                  •  Yeah, in full support of the Obama re-election (6+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TimmyB, gzodik, Delilah, G2geek, gramofsam1, itsbenj

                    campaign.

                    And your point is?

                    "I'm glad I don't know how it feels to vote to withhold basic human rights from someone else." DavidW-DKos

                    by sockpuppet on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:01:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  His mouth is paid (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      turn blue, JesseCW, liberaldemdave, duufus

                      to spout whatever meme du jour his employers approve him to spout.  And we're not talking about whether he supports the President or not. We're talking about Maher's Concern over what Occupy is doing.

                      So, y'know, please dispense with these strawmen, already!
                       

                      It is time to #Occupy Media.

                      by lunachickie on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:21:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  HBO? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sockpuppet, gramofsam1, itsbenj

                        I think you're confusing them with Disney. He's actually paid to be a provocative trouble maker there.

                        Actually, even if he were working for Disney (as he once did at ABC), it's not quite as simple as you paint it...or do you think Rachel Maddow says whatever GE "approves her to spout."?

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

                        by LABobsterofAnaheim on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 02:42:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Uh, no, I'm not (0+ / 0-)

                          I was very clear, if you've been paying attention. HBO is owned by Time Warner, who also owns lying bullshitter-shadows-of-their-former-selves CNN. Color me unimpressed by attempts to paint Maher as some kind of creative genius. He's under contract to them.

                          If any of these "Hosts" of their "Shows" on The American Media Dominated by Six Companies have complete, total freedom to say and do whatever they fucking well please, then let us know when Bill Maher will be provocative enough to invite someone besides a right wing shill on his show to talk about stuff like Occupy.

                          If he's that concerned, let him knock off the Concern Lectures and show us what HE is doing ON HIS SHOW to help Occupy. My bet is nothing but bad mouthing them, because that's what benefits his employers.

                          OTOH, if you have some sort of absolute proof that these people have the kind of, erm, creative carte-blanche that you attest, perhaps you could cite the source?  

                          It is time to #Occupy Media.

                          by lunachickie on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:00:54 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Basic rules of argument (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sockpuppet

                            You make an unproven assertion; you're the one obliged to provide evidence to support it. It's not the responsibility of others to disprove your claim, it's your responsibility to prove it. Otherwise you're just spewing a lot of hot air.

                             

                      •  Have you ever worked in TV media? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gramofsam1

                        Because I have and I can tell you that this fantasy of major players like Maher being nothing more than corporate puppets is just that, a fantasy.

                        Maher is where he is because he commands an audience. If he didn't have that they would stop signing his checks. He is paid for that audience, not his opinions. Capitalists have a habit of marketing whatever will bring them a profit, including dissenting views.

                        The idea that people disagree with you only because they are paid to do so is a dangerous illusion.

                    •  the point is... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ladyjames

                      that maher's million speaks volumes...with all due respect to the office, it seems the president has done more to protect corporate interests and the mega wealthy that run those interests than he has the 1%.

                •  Bill Maher doesn't give a shit if the (5+ / 0-)

                  lady running the Co-Op he gets his weed from goes to federal prison.

                  Obama won't arrest him for holding, and that's what matters to Bill Maher.

                  "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                  by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:01:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Where are you getting this? Maher rails (0+ / 0-)

                    constantly against the war on drugs and the raids in particular.  Do you ever actually watch Real Time?  Do you have some personal connection to Bill Maher that qualifies you to say what he does or does not give a shit about?

              •  No, it happens door to door & on the net & (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek

                with new candidates elected to office. You won't change the media until you over power money by getting it out of the election system. Sitting in the park has limited effect. You can't organize against big money without being faster and nimbler than them. Screw TV. OWS needs to spend its time face to face talking to individuals by going around the media. Otherwise it will fade away, mark my words.

                •  What part of (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis, JesseCW, jcrit, liberaldemdave

                  The Media won't present them in a positive way is not yet clear here?

                  OWS needs to spend its time face to face talking to individuals by going around the media
                  What they need to do is exactly what they're doing. Selling out is going to get them where it's getting the Tea Party: double-crossed.
                   

                  It is time to #Occupy Media.

                  by lunachickie on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:15:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What part of taking back the press from moguls ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... don't you get? What part of going around and defusing the influence of the media don't you get? Or of taking the Democratic party away from the elites don't you get? Evidently plenty.

                    Sorry, you're steps behind people who for a long time have realized that the problem of media is one of quasi-monopolization and the need to, in part, break it up. To create more competition and free speech. That takes undoing laws that make it easy to monopolize. And you ignore the huge numbers of people any who don't watch TV or traditional media but who spend more time on the web. Or who are fed up with politics unless someone takes time face to face to show them solutions are available. Pay attention to how much more media is created every freakin' month. There's new platforms of communication every year, like facebook and twitter. This isn't your grandfather's era of broadcasting anymore.

                    But what you mostly don't understand is that if you want change, you go door to door and talk with people or phone bank a bit to get them to vote. To challenge their misconceptions and get them to actually cast a ballot. Making an effort to converse with people for a couple of minutes can undo dozens of ads or a pile of bullshit. There are numbers that prove this is more effective than any other means of political communication. Talking to a peer in your community who spends a few hours volunteering to support candidates Have you done this?

                    Unless more new and better candidates are put into office, and neocons are shoved out the door by the bus loads, we won't occupy anything for long.

            •  Non-Cooperation on a large scale will (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gooderservice

              bring down big money.

              Not "protests".

              "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

              by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:00:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And we'll have tens of millions not cooperating by (0+ / 0-)

                when? Not enough by November. I agree it's effective against commercial interests but how is OWS organizing this where we're seeing ever more of the 99%?  

                And non-cooperation in the political system does exactly the opposite. It give politicians free reign to do whatever they want because no one threatens their seats directly. Voting is direct action. Getting more and more people to ride herd on politicians through petitions, emails, phone calls and yes, even with money is direct action. Do you know where the Tea Party succeeded where OWS failed so far? In the primary elections. Granted, OWS has had less time to do so, but there are precious few candidates that are OWS candidates. If OWS does not organize for that as well as outside the system, it leaves no impression on one entire side of the coin.

                You will not have legislation come down on Wall St. unless OWS focuses on taking the money out of there. When OWS has candidates in the running in 2014 I'll be impressed with it. Until then I am so hoping that OWS will expand its influence greatly, but I'm really worried it won't be effective enough.

      •  We should all know (19+ / 0-)

        That the Tea Party was funded (and still is) by the likes of the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove (American Crossroads) and such others in the same line.

        Occupy and their group claim not to have "leaders" and their early (2011) way of organizing and protesting were 99% (no pun intended) bad publicity.  They have been seen as an offshoot of the anti war protestors during the Viet Nam war era.  

        The Tea Party, on the other hand, are portrayed as people solidly interested in their government and the way it spends money.  They want and are making a good case for themselves to shrink government, end taxes and get that black guy out of THEIR WHITE HOUSE.

        I agree with Bill Maher and saw this program last night.  I have also heard that the Occupy people say they won't vote in 2012.  This is the most STUPID thing I've ever heard.  If you want to take back the country for the 99% get your ass to the polls and vote and if you want to do more, volunteer, register voters, donate (if you're able to), get out there and help win back America.  In 2014 you should have candidates ready to run in local elections, even if it's the lowest elected office in your city, town, etc.  You want to take back our country from the likes of the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, etc then tear down your tent and get back to the real fight the 99% should be doing now.  Help re-elect President Obama, he's got his problems but do you REALLY want Romney to be President?  Do you REALLY want Congress controlled by the Republicons?  You want change so make that change happen have your vote heard.  Tell me, can't you just see how much worse things will be for us with Romney and Republicons in change?  Think about the Ryan budget which will be law on January 21, 2013 if they win.  THINK ABOUT IT.  

        Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

        by Rosalie907 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:44:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        for the Koch brothers, their name is not pronounced the same way the former mayor of NYC's is, but as "Coke".  It's an easy mistake to make.

        "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

        by TLS66 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:43:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  OWS does not equal the TEA party (39+ / 0-)

      OWS is not the TEA (The Enemies of America) Party, and should not act or be like the TEA party.

      First off, the TEA (the Enemies of America) Party is a front for the corporatocracy.  Were it not for the money put up by the corporatocracy, the TEA (the Enemies of America) Party would be out of office, off the streets, and back at home clinging to their guns and bibles.

      I suggest to you that having the OWS movement taken over by a bunch of fat cats intent on seizing political power through racism and lies will not further democracy in America and is counter to the goals of the OWS movement (full disclosure: I do not speak for the OWS movement).

      Secondly, it is precisely the independence of the OWS from the two mainstream political parties that gives OWS its power and significance.  American elections are all about the money, not about people choosing for themselves (cf Wisconson recall election), and one of OWS goals is to fight against the systemic corruption that is now our electoral process, not to join in.  

      I admire Bill Maher and enjoy his political views and humor.  And I suggest that if Maher feels he knows best what this country needs and how to run it, he should go ahead and run for office (after all, he has experience in the entertainment bis, and lots of money), not wait for OWS to do it for him.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:19:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Autonomy is good but solidarity is better (26+ / 0-)

        The OWS movement is a great thing to share with other Americans who don't want a corporatocracy.

        That could be Democrats, Progressives, real Republicans (an endangered species), and the great tide of confused voters out there waiting to be tapped on the shoulder and asked to join a  movement that is fed-up with corruption and sell-outs.

        The OWS only needs to hang on to their genuine, righteous anger and reach out to all Americans.
        They have the "right stuff". It might need some tweeking to make it understandable to the "liberal shy" Americans but they don't need to give up a thing to be who they are.
        They just need to join the rest of us disgruntled souls who are feed-up.

        •  Precisely!!! (21+ / 0-)

          The OWS message is NOT the democratic party message and SHOULD NOT BE the democratic party message.

          The OWS message of equality of economic opportunity and ending de facto legislative corruption has supporters across the political spectrum.  But by aligning with one party or another, the OWS immediately alienates a good number of those potential supporters (and weakens it core message).

          OWS can appeal to the greatest number of supporters for its cause by remaining apart from the two mainstream political parties.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:17:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Green Party? (4+ / 0-)
            The OWS message is NOT the democratic party message and SHOULD NOT BE the democratic party message.

            The OWS message of equality of economic opportunity and ending de facto legislative corruption has supporters across the political spectrum.  But by aligning with one party or another, the OWS immediately alienates a good number of those potential supporters (and weakens it core message).

            OWS can appeal to the greatest number of supporters for its cause by remaining apart from the two mainstream political parties.

            The Greens could finally find a way to making themselves into a viable mainstream 3rd party.  But start out in local and state elections.  Potentially as a result, 3rd party presidential candidates will be taken seriously if there is a strong edifice of support for Green/OWS candidacies at the local and state level.

            For what its worth, Jello Biafra a year or so ago recommended that OWS people start running for office.

            "Sisters, brothers and the whities, Blacks and the crackers, Police and their backers, They're all political actors"--Curtis Mayfield

            by Cynic in seattle on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:17:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  GOP Has Coopted The Greens Before (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sockpuppet, blueoasis, gramofsam1

              The Greens have been used as a false flag by the GOP.

              There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

              by bernardpliers on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:45:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Unfortunately, you are right (0+ / 0-)

                I thought about joining their party and investigated what they thought. I was disappointed that they fall into the same free-market nonsense that the Tea Party and the GOP do.

                Too bad ,because they do a great job on election integrity matters.  

            •  What 3rd party since the mid 1800's came to power? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Morgan Sandlin, Whimsical, gramofsam1

              None. Nor will Greens or any other for the immediate future. It's more likely any 3rd party that comes to power will be conservative. Occupy the Democratic party and stop trying to re-invent the wheel.

              •  One of two options (0+ / 0-)
                Occupy the Democratic party and stop trying to re-invent the wheel.
                In addition to occupying the greens

                "Sisters, brothers and the whities, Blacks and the crackers, Police and their backers, They're all political actors"--Curtis Mayfield

                by Cynic in seattle on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:46:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, make the Dems a party the Greens can join n/t (0+ / 0-)
                  •  I know people who are Greens that are also (0+ / 0-)

                    members of the Democratic Party. You do what you damn well please. I got flack from a Green Party member once for trying to help them do an election observation. when they couldn't get their own members to do it. She was concerned about my "agenda". My agenda was election integrity. Other members of the Green Party told me to ignore this party purist. They understood my motivations and were glad to have me.

                    Noodles , I believe we need all the people we can get to change the direction of the country. I believe in solidarity and a collaborative approach to problem solving. We don't have to be clones and agree on everything, just the most important things. Factions are the greatest force of destruction in our political process. Look at what the Tea Party is doing to the GOP.

              •  I like that idea. Occupy the Democratic Party (0+ / 0-)

                As Howard Dean used to say, "We are the democratic
                wing of the Democratic Party". He got pushed around
                by the Democratic Party. He was great. He should have
                been president.

                I would like to seriously propose that we do that.
                The structure is there and all we would be doing is
                trying to make the Democrats accountable to the
                American voters instead of corporations with fat wallets.

          •  actually (17+ / 0-)

            I'd say that the OWS message should be the Democratic Party message. That it isn't is one reason why OWS came to be, that is, both parties bought by banks and corporations at the expense of the 99%.

            That said, issue activism that is not aligned with either party has an important role in politics and always will (think civil rights movement).

            I'm of the mind of doing both. Issue activism outside the election system AND voting. I realize that a lot of our ballot choices are crappy. I live in a state with a weak Democratic party. I still vote.

            It's possible, in fact preferable, to pursue multiple tactics in multiple venues.

            48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam If you can't feed a hundred people, then just feed one. - Mother Teresa

            by wasatch on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:41:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  No, it is the Ron Paul message (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            on the cusp, sockpuppet, ozsea1

            at least the Occupy in my neck of the woods. Dems aren't welcome or liberals or progressives but idiots with Paul signs were all over the place when I last looked into them.

            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

            by high uintas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:48:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  OWS needs to Occupy the Democratic party (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sockpuppet, Aquarius40, ozsea1, Whimsical

            Jeez, where is your evidence that working outside the mainstream parties has made a significant change since the mid-1800's? Please cite that for me. OWS needs to be evidence based, not just a feel good movement. That why our Hippy brethren got their asses beat and their movement dismantled and marginalized. I'm old enough to have seen it happen.

            •  I would bet a lot of OWS (7+ / 0-)

              did work within the mainstream in 2008 and learned that working within the system has not changed anything (looking back at least 30 years).  

              •  It took 30 years for the neocons to change the GOP (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RockyMtnLib

                Change takes time, new strategies and perserverance. Sorry to rain on your instant gratification parade.

                •  Trite, hackneyed pablum (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  liberaldemdave, indres, ladyjames

                  that betrays a lack of education in history.  Trying to compare the neoconservative rise to a people's movement is fallacious.  They required that much time because they had to condition people to ignore their own best interests.  And they did so with lots of money and thought.  

                  The republican party was always at a distinct numbers disadvantage.  They had to use a range of tactics to change that because they had no intention of giving the people what they want.  They had to distract with social issues and convince people that serving the moneyed interests was actually in the people's interest.

                  The Democratic party (DNC) was a party of the people.  Its support derived from serving the interests of the people. For this reason, it always had a huge numbgers advantage.  That advantage remains within their reach- if they were interested in grabbing it.  The lack of enthusiasm for the party is a direct result of their decision to ignore the needs of the people while serving the same moneyed interests.  

                  OWS actually is a new strategy, so I don't understand your point.

                  •  No it's not a particularly new movement (0+ / 0-)

                    And I think many of us are arguing that it will historically go the way of other such American people movements. A certain amount of working outside the system is good, and a certain amount of spontaneous, nimble emergence is powerful.

                    But without a certain direction, if only to take the power of money out of our electoral system, not working within the system in an organized fashion it will be doomed to fail like the other movements that did not do so.

                    This is what Maher is saying, and so am I. If it were so effective, with the numbers we have, it would be a slam dunk. At this point, I see no slam dunks in November. If it goes badly, OWS will lose much of what's already been gained.

                  •  The DNC sold out to Wall St. They thought they (0+ / 0-)

                    could take the big donations and not get caught up in the
                    all the  corruption. It didn't work. They got bought.

                    There are some great people left in the party--Sen. Sherrod Brown, Sen.Bernie Sanders to name a few but
                    too many forget why they are there.

                    OWS won't be getting any Wall ST. money that's for sure.
                    They have the People's heart and mind.

                •  It took 30 years and several billion (3+ / 0-)

                  dollars in donations and bequests from the power elite.

                  As Bill Maher just proved, the 7 figure and up crowd is not on the side of the rest of us.

                  "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                  by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:03:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  gee, I dunno (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              efraker, ozsea1, wsexson, Nada Lemming

              Labor has gotten so much more powerful after it moved inside the Democratic Party in the 1970s, don't you think?

              all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

              by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:48:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Democracy for America was holding its own (0+ / 0-)

              before the media decided to sink Howard Dean's boat.
              I was there and I saw it happen. It disgusted me.
              Kerry acted like a weasel. It was hard to support him.
              I wanted Dean and he would have been the better
              of the two.

              If the American voters had understood who
              Dean was and his message (Progressive), he probably
              would have survived. Ignorance is not bliss.

              The "Hippies" were a phase, not a real political movement.
              They had some good ideas but they came across as
              rebellious kids. I was there. I found them offensive at times but admired their originality.

      •  OWS has absolutely no power (22+ / 0-)

        At all.  It's all in your head.  The average American does not care about OWS.  At all.  Why should they?  OWS cannot write a single law, put up a single candidate, or really do much of anything besides scream.

        •  Just like 99% of the voters!! n/t (11+ / 0-)

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:19:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  BULLSHIT. (34+ / 0-)

          Get your facts straight - Think Progress did, back in May:

          ThinkProgress compiled a brief list of Occupy Wall Street’s accomplishments over its first six months:

          Income Inequality: The 99 Percent movement refocused America’s political debate, forcing news outlets and eventually politicians to focus on rising income inequality. While debt and deficits were the primary focus of the media before the movement started, their attention after the movement began shifted to jobs, Wall Street, and unemployment. By the end of October, even Republicans were talking about income inequality, and a week later, Time Magazine devoted its cover to the topic, asking, “Can you still move up in America?”

          Occupy Our Homes: The movement has drawn attention to many of the predatory, discriminatory, and fraudulent practices perpetrated by banks during the foreclosure crisis, and across the country, Occupy groups, religious leaders, and community organizations have helped homeowners prevent wrongful foreclosures on their homes. Activists in Detroit are working to save their fifth home, and similar actions have taken place in cities like Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Cleveland, and Atlanta. The movement has drawn so much attention that local political leaders and even members of Congress have stepped in to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

          Move Your Money: On Bank Transfer Day, activists helped more than 40,000 Americans move their money from large banks to credit unions, and more than 650,000 switched to credit unions last October. Religious groups have taken up the cause as well, moving $55 million before Thanksgiving. This year, a San Francisco interfaith group moved $10 million from Wells Fargo and other groups marked Lent by moving more money from Wall Street. As a result, analysts say the nation’s 10 biggest banks could lose $185 billion in customer deposits this year “due to customer defections.”

          Fighting For Positive Policies: Occupy groups have pushed for positive policy outcomes at both the state and federal levels. Occupy The SEC submitted a 325-page comment letter on the Volcker Rule, a regulation to rein in big banks. Pressure from protesters forced New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) to reverse his opposition to a millionaire’s tax, and activists fought Indiana Republicans’ union-busting “right-to-work” law, and have pushed big banks to stop financing destructive environmental practices like mountaintop removal mining in coal states.

          Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. ~ Yoda Political Compass: -8.50, -6.46

          by Cinnamon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:23:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But... (9+ / 0-)

            You offer examples of influence and messaging. Those are not examples of power.

            In contrast the Tea Party caucus has routinely forced the Speaker of the House to adopt or reject specific policy positions. That is power.

            Play the game or lose before you start. There's two parties and only two parties. Republicans or Democrats; chose one and take it over from the inside out. Otherwise its a big show with nowhere to go.

            •  Influence is Power (12+ / 0-)

              And if you look at my comments downthread, you will see that I have stated strongly that I believe that the Occupy Movement should work within the Democratic Party, not hold itself separate, or create a "third party". You can't blame a spontaneous grassroots Movement that it's birth did not come at the precise and most advantageous point in an election cycle to suddenly sweep into power. This is the fundamental difference between a grassroots movement By the PEOPLE vs an astroturf movement, owned  by the Koch brothers.

              The Tea Party was a tool, manufactured and used very effectively, to undermine this Presidency and Democratic power in the House in the mid-term election, by the Powers That Lost after their puppet GWB destroyed this country. They DID choose the time and mobilize, and were rushed in so that they swept into power, because the agenda was already created, agreed upon, and the canned message resonated with people who could be easily manipulated by talking points instead of facts. It was amplified and echoed, praised and glorified, in the Murdoch-controlled media, all day and every day, on the road to the midterms.

              ANY positive coverage about the 99% Movement was slow coming,  hard-won, and fought vehemently and viciously by those same powers who swept the Tea Party in. You never saw the police arresting reporters at a Tea Party Rally, but they came out in force to make the peaceful protests look violent, scary, and "dirty" on camera, or they Raided in the middle of the night, in darkness that was both physical, and in keeping journalists out. So much for a Free Press.

              Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. ~ Yoda Political Compass: -8.50, -6.46

              by Cinnamon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:51:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The Tea Party just keeps throwing that poor (8+ / 0-)

              bastard in that briar patch over and over...

              Yeah.  Boehner has done lots of stuff he didn't want to do.

              Sigh

              "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

              by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:06:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The point remains (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Morgan Sandlin, gramofsam1, WB Reeves

                The Tea Party has pushed the GOP string-pullers even further than the string-pullers prefer. Not always, but often. The point remains, the string-pullers are not entirely in control of their creation.

                •  Let me repeat and add to something I posted a few. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Viola, indres

                  days ago.  The TP is owned and operated (well manipulated is more like it) by the Koch Bros, which IIRC plays a major role in ALEC.  It should be obvious that the TP has been manipulated to agree with the agenda of ALEC hence they CAN get people elected and legislation passed.  It's easier when you have MONEY and INFLUENCE to do so.  Candidates are probably groomed and hand selected by Koch and ALEC.  Then throw in the Right Wing media.  Viola!

                •  Yeah. Boehner really really doesn't want to be (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gooderservice

                  so batshit crazy right wing but....

                  Not buying.  Recognize Kabuki.

                  "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

                  by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:05:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  that isn't (0+ / 0-)

              "the Tea Party" though, it's simply well-funded conservative Republicans, just like any other conservative Republicans.

              there simply is no such thing as "well funded liberal Democrats" acting as a bloc. nor will there be any time soon. I think people are underestimating the power of money here. we have the #s over them. unquestionably. yet we lose and will continue to lose because of the money imbalance.

              Obama was able to out-raise John McCain, who voluntarily took public funds instead of raising his own. this will not be the playing field in this upcoming election!

              I think the American political left can only sustain one of these things at a time though. Obama gets re-elected, OWS goes pretty much nowhere. if he loses, they'll be all we have in terms of public messaging until some new Dem arises for the masses to "fall in love with".

              Think of me what you will, I've got a little space to fill. - Tom Petty

              by itsbenj on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:57:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I agree but I suspect (0+ / 0-)

              the Occupy guys have no interest in the boring volunteer work one has to do to begin the slow rise to power within the local, county, state and national party hierarchy.  And that's a sad thing.  

              Proud Democrat since 1960.

              by Lying eyes on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:11:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  So, roughly 2 tenths of 1% move their money (0+ / 0-)

            And this is touted as a success??

            For the record, I moved my money to a credit union 2 years ago, but .002 % is a tiny number, and it is indicative of where this movement is going.

      •  That would have been nice if OWS actually had (8+ / 0-)

        any power and significance. However, it doesn't. Show me a single thing that was changed b/c of influence of OWS.

      •  This was Maher's worst "New Rule".... (57+ / 0-)

        ....in the history of this program.

        If OWS had the "engine" that the Tea Party had, OWS would be kicking serious arse.

        Let's first review what the Tea Party had as an apparatus backing them, which enabled the meteoric rise of the Tea Party in '10:

        First of all, Dick Armey and his army of goons had Tea Party websites already established by Sept/Oct 2008 (as was documented here on Daily Kos). They knew that they were going to lose the '08 elections, and were already planning the attack.

        Then these "Tea Party" types were used in the battle over healthcare and taxes over and over again, rounded up by various Fox and other assorted media promos. From the very beginning, Fox and other radio and news orgs propped up and amplified EVERYTHING Tea Party related. Have Queen Sarah show up in town with her Americans For Prosperity bus, attract 100 people, and watch the national and local media crop the photos and video to make it look like thousands, and print "thousands" on the page print.

        If only OWS got such amplification.

        How long did it take for MSNBC and other national corporate media to pick up and begin reporting on OWS?

        Does the average Bill Maher viewer realize that Zucotti Park wasn't full of hippies, but average middle class people? This is what scared the hell out of the powers that be: If it were just a bunch of hippies, they would just turn the cameras on them and make therm look like freaks. But these were MIDDLE CLASS people that everyone watching the vast range of raw footage from Zucotti on YouTube understood wasn't just a bunch of people that the media was used to dumping on (people of color/hippies/poor/whomever can be made to look bad). These people look like NBC's target audience - and that unnerves the corporate owners of these networks.

        Does Bill Maher understand the recent information that suggests that the OWS demonstration crackdowns were coordinated from DC and homeland security (as if watching it wasn't proof enough)?

        Bill Maher also misunderstands that whole "voting" thing. You see, we TRIED that. We put a Dem in the WH, and gave him a near supermajority congress to clean up the messes that the BushBots made. ESPECIALLY the banking issues - Obama had all the political capital to sell the idea to set the banking system right, and has ended up letting them all off the hook. So OWS figured out that it was time to bypass the middlemen that the banks and other corporations were buying off (the politicians), and go to the source of the corruption DIRECTLY.

        Many in OWS also know who owns the media, just like they know who owns the politicians (they are completely bought and paid for), and that it is a protectorate for the corporate state. Time/Warner is a part of the corporate media cabal that controls most of the information people see, hear, and read - so it doesn't surprise me that Maher would insert this little "poison pill" to make you think "Oh, they're just a bunch of hippies that need to get a clue", when this is not an accurate read of what makes up OWS. It is the impression that is left from Maher's blather here.

        I will state that OWS isn't without issues. Primarily, they need to be able to coordinate now. They need some form of organization to enable them to not just put 30.000 in the streets, but 300,000 - or a MIL. The message actually is quite clear: Income inequality and a general sense of a lack of justice and economic rights. It is only through that organization that we can apply the force needed to the political system necessary to affect real change. There is a huge need to organize better to "channel the energy" in the right ways.

        But we don't have MSNBC ready with a hand and camera lens looking out for us the moment we attempt to put out our message. The Tea Party has a MEDIA ARMY, and that army does all it can to make the Tea Party look good and drive the overall media conversation. These habits aren't by accident - they are deliberate tactics employed by corporate media owners to crush any and all attempts for the population to restore their economic rights - the same corporate owners Bill Maher works for.

        WORST "New Rule" ever - an total and complete fail. Maybe next week we can put Bill Maher "In The Bubble".

        •  Wow, and thank you! (20+ / 0-)

          Thank you for your in-depth comment.

          Have you thought of writing this up as a diary?

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:51:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't dispute you, but Maher still hits a nerve. (7+ / 0-)

          Astro-turf or not, the teahad has done more than just 'change the conversation' -- which amounts to zilch anyway.  The teahad held up the debt ceiling while OWS couldn't even get a national commission to investigate mortgage and foreclosure fraud.

          Don't tell me we have Schneiderman occupying a 'national' chair now -- that dude has been totally co-opted.

          Plus it appears that while the teahad has institutional big money backers and protectors (when's the last time any of 'em were busted in the streets?) OWS (on the other hand) has been the victim of brutal suppression, which (according to a recent rec-list diary here) has been nationally (federally) organized.

          The national Democratic organization (including the administration) is not really on the side of OWS, although they don't want to appear too strongly against.  They are still searching for those mythical centrist voters out there-- you know, like the reasonable ones, that were gonna help take back Wisconsin?  (Although I don't think the administration really cares about displacing union-busters either.  Just saying'.)

          The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

          by magnetics on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:26:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Dem power structure..... (23+ / 0-)

            .....HATES OWS. You know - people like Cory Booker, who have to suck at the trough of people like Bain and Wall Street in order to get any investment in his area - instead of allowing the government to help rebuild his city and put people back to work. The banks (as Mr. Durbin reminded us) "own the place" and that is on the direct opposing side of where OWS stands.

            Yes, there are a few Dems who see our way (those in very safe liberal districts), but as soon as any of them talk about the issues of OWS the corporate donor raiders come calling to either cut off their funding or put funding behind the next bank-tool candidate.

            The Dems are going to be looking for that "mystical middle" until they go permanently extinct (along with the middle class), as this country becomes a two class lord/serf type society where the serfdom is designed by the owners to be permanent. Wisconsin should have had the national Dem party on full alert and operation from the get go, but when you realize the thinking that controls the DNC it's no shock that the unions and other workers would be hung out to dry.

            •  I just came out of a campaign (10+ / 0-)

              where my candidate, a true grassroots progressive with a lot of popular support, was up against a blue-dog multi-millionaire self-funder.  Guess who the party muckety-mucks preferred?

              Despite being outfunded 5-1 (while our candidate actually outraised him in the last quarter, he dumped $1.25M of his own money in the last two weeks) the votes are still being counted.  At last tally, he was ahead by 800 votes, or less than one percentage point.

              We would have won easily had the establishment lined up behind us.  All the "progressives" that supported him admitted that he wasn't the best candidate from an ideological point of view, but that he was "the only one who could win" (i.e. - he's rich).

              Overhauling the democratic party is a gargantuan task, but IMO it is the only way to make change.

              "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

              by La Gitane on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:30:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The GOP created the Tea Party (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1, caul, Aquarius40, magnetics

            But as Dr Frankenstein learned, the creation can develop a will of its own.

            What the GOP or Dem Party of today wants is irrelevant. BECOME the party and define what it is the Party wants. Be part of America's political system or what the hell do you think will happen? Nothing. By definition, politics is how things are accomplished.

          •  Tea Party and Republican want the same thing (4+ / 0-)

            OWS and the Democratic Establishment want opposite things.  Of course the teabaggers "accomplish" more.

            all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

            by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:55:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The field is tilted against you (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1, dfarrah, Aquarius40, ozsea1

          Get used to it. All the complaining in the world does not change Mr Maher's basic point: Talking gets you so far and no further. Time for what we call OWS to change America's politics from the inside-out or just fade away.

        •  Great comment. I wish you would put it in diary (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          efraker, ladyjames, BeninSC

          form.

        •  You are right on all the points... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aquarius40, davidinmaine

          ...but wrong on the overall point. Yes, OWS would have more influence if it had powerful backers. But OWS has gone of its way to say that it doesn't want powerful backers. It wants to start the revolution using nothing but "people power".

          If you look at the history of "people power" in this country you will find that none of it actually achieved anything until it got some powerful backers as allies.

          OWS has as its operating principle that a "powerful backer" is inherently corrupting and therefore to be avoided at all costs. The end result is that they have no power to effect real change and just end up pissing everyone off. They piss of those who disagree with them because they just think they're a bunch of dirty fucking hippies. They piss of those who agree with them but hate that all that energy is being wasted on actions that make the Occupiers feel better about themselves but don't actually make the world a better place.

          I used to be a big support of OWS. But, at this point, I consider OWS to have been a movement that blew it big time. The idea that they still matter is laughable. And they have no one to blame but themselves.

        •  Occupying parks doesn't work... (0+ / 0-)

          I figure many Americans believed they were a bunch of young hippies without jobs and nothing to do except sit in a tent at the local park.  Their assessment is wrong, but occupying parks makes it easy to frame in that way because having time to sit for days somewhere is not understandable to people who are going to their job everyday.  

          In other words, they are likely thinking:  Who are these people who have time to sit in a park while I have to grind my way through another crappy work day?

          What we need is to have very, very large rallies and marches, with a broad diversity of people.  We also need to have a message and say it repeatedly.  And, just as the tea party did, we need to interrupt - a lot - by showing up at political events, even with conservative Democrats, and asking smart questions.

          IMHO, that's a start to how the OWS message could be made more understandable (and less likely to be framed as a bunch of hippies by the media) to our fellow citizens.

          We cannot solve the problems that we have created with the same thinking that created them." - Albert Einstein

          by CarolinW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:33:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Righteous rant (and fine analysis) (0+ / 0-)

          But for the record: Keith Olbermann began covering OWS on Monday September 19th, just two days after their first march in New York. In fact, he interviewed actual protesters almost everyday in the beginning. His erstwhile show on Current quickly became the news clearinghouse for everything OWS.

          How long did it take for MSNBC and other national corporate media to pick up and begin reporting on OWS?
          I have no doubt he'd be covering it today if he still had a show.

          "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

          by markthshark on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:46:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  TEA (The Enemies of America). (7+ / 0-)

        I like that. Gonna start referring to them as that from now on. Thanks.

        Gonna bust my butt to get Democrats elected this Fall.

        by kefauver on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:14:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  door to door with message: yes// pro DEM: no (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Renee, happymisanthropy

        I think door to door, or a tent on every block (rotating) would be great. But my message would be income inequality, income inequality, income inequaility/cannon foderincome inequalitytheft of civil rightsincome inequality/ and so on

        Them, either the dems or the r's could address the issue.

        Mangled quote: with only one party, all else is resistance

      •  Being divorced from power does not grant power (5+ / 0-)
        Secondly, it is precisely the independence of the OWS from the two mainstream political parties that gives OWS its power and significance.
        That might be its defining characteristic in the minds of most Americans, but it reflects backwards thinking. Refusing to be part of America's political structure does the exact opposite thing as giving it power.  The only way for OWS to share in any power is to participate in the political system in order to drive it towards the desired goals.
      •  what power and significance? (4+ / 0-)

        Given the outpouring of love for Bain fom Booker et al, it doesn't look like OWS is driving anything now.

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

        by Geekesque on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:23:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you, HJB... (0+ / 0-)

        for saying everything I wanted to say only you said it better.

        Secondly, it is precisely the independence of the OWS from the two mainstream political parties that gives OWS its power and significance.  

        American elections are all about the money, not about people choosing for themselves (cf Wisconson recall election), and one of OWS goals is to fight against the systemic corruption that is now our electoral process, not to join in.

      •  I truly don't mean to be disrespectful but (5+ / 0-)
        Secondly, it is precisely the independence of the OWS from the two mainstream political parties that gives OWS its power and significance.
        What power and significance ?

        “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

        by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:50:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  why are you talking about OWS? (0+ / 0-)

          Why is Bill Maher talking about OWS? Why is anyone?

          Its so weird because the received wisdom we get from the media is to stop thinking about OWS because they don't matter. Sure do hear that a lot...

          Occupy isn't the Tea Party. We don't want corporate sponsorship. Its because we're a grassroots movement. Its because we reject the influence of money in politics, rather than asking for money to garner our own political influence.

          Comparing them to each other is like comparing Halliburton to Medecins sans Frontieres. Totally different MOs, totally different outlooks.

          "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

          by efraker on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:18:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We also talk about the Kardashians. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            itsbenj, davidinmaine, gramofsam1

            There is a difference between being a novelty a d a vehicle for change. I see good intentions. But very little movement toward solving problems.

            “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

            by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:52:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  "purity" can be the enemy of positive action (0+ / 0-)

        Sure, well and good, OWS did a good job with its teach-ins which definitely had its purpose.  I believe that it served in helping to arousing the awareness of the general public to the insatiable greed of the zillionaires responsible for the obscene inequities that are actually on the increase.  The real question now, is "where do we go from here?"

        We'll need much more than holding hands and singing "Kumbaya".  The only thing that the Right seems to understand is POWER.  Time is running short, the time for real political mobilization is now!

    •  The Tea Party doesn't always play smart though. (15+ / 0-)

      If we play the game smarter than they do, we can win. They put up their most extreme candidates in places that are safely Democratic, like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. That's like putting up our most liberal candidates up in a state like Kansas or Mississippi. It doesn't work. If you want to play the game right, you knock out the bad elected officials in safer district (like 65%+ Democratic). The right strategy is to take out corporate Democrats in safe districts, not necessarily those that are in weaker states or districts. We're not going to be able to elect Ted Kennedy Democrats in marginal or even-PVI districts. If we act smarter than them, we can control the agenda in Congress. If it weren't for the extremists in the Tea Party, the Senate may very well be tied or even worse right now.

      To say there is no difference between the parties is a ridiculous statement, as I have seen said before. I think one of the most important issues this election is the future of the Supreme Court. If you want another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you had better vote Democratic. If not, we're stuck with another Antonin Scalia, losing every vote by at least 5-4. The consequences would be disastrous for the country. And that's saying nothing about the many other issues we would lose at the federal level. It is extremely important that the President be reelected and that we win as many Congressional seats as possible, at least keeping the Senate and hopefully winning back the House.

      For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die. - Sen. Ted Kennedy

      by Dem 724 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:20:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Tea Party is beloved of the 1%... (5+ / 0-)

      Maher=epic fail. The moment Occupy endorses Obama, Occupy is dead. I predict it won't happen.

    •  The Tea Party has gotten almost none of (9+ / 0-)

      what they wanted.

      They wanted to End the Fed.  They wanted to end corporate and bank bailouts.  

      Now, the people who dumped money into The Tea Party = they got what they wanted.

      Some folks are mighty pissed that dumping millions into joke "Training Sessions" didn't give them control of Occupy in the same way.

      "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

      by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:00:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maher is correct, we need our own crazy mofo's (5+ / 0-)

      ... in Congress.  We need a determined bloc of ELECTED OFFICIALS who are as determined to pull the frickin' Beltway to the left as the teahadists are to pull it to the right.

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:09:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  To BruinKid thanks for diary! (0+ / 0-)

      sig...You just ran into a hardcore progressive who's just another working stiff with an MBA degree & therefore a vociferous labor union supporter [smile]

      by Democrats Ramshield on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:26:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I See... (42+ / 1-)

    So, by campaigning for the same party whose mayors unleashed riot police on our encampments, whose Congressmen voted for military detention and whose President cut the banks a sweet deal on their mortgage frauds, we're going to achieve our goals? I'd call that delusional.

  •  And if (12+ / 0-)

    He were paying attention he would know Occupy is already doing ALL those things already.

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:12:00 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for everything BruinKid (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizenx, annieli, Smoh, Cinnamon, fcvaguy

    I couldn't make it to RI either.
    Waaa!

  •  Bill Maher has a good point. Problem is he is (12+ / 0-)

    assuming that everyone at Occupy Wall street is a Democrat willing to help Obama and Dems win re-election. The Tea party did everything to help Rethuglicans win the House, and they succeeded.Occupy has been saying they are not political. I wish they could do for Dems what Tea party did for Republicans...oh well.

  •  they are running for office (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hrubec, rcnewton

    Roseanne Barr is running for president.  

  •  Some OWS people feel that (26+ / 0-)

    they already did as Maher suggested & the election of Barack Obama was the result. And that that result hasn't brought about the changes they feel most important,and so they aren't interested in electoral politics. Others are running and working with Dems on grassroots issues and campaigns. A mixed bag,a very mixed movement.
    Maher seems to think that OWS candidates would be afforded the same backing by the Democratic Party funders that rich GOPers give to Tea Partiers. Not at all true. Coupled with the current admin's distancing itself from the left(er) side of the party,Progressive Caucus has 76 members,as well as the stranglehold big money has on our system,anyone should be able to clearly see why OWS is skeptical of electoral politics in general.

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

    by tardis10 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:38:34 AM PDT

    •  "a mainstream democrat wound up (6+ / 0-)

      governing like a mainstream democrat, therefore the system doesn't work."

      yeah, that sounds like OWS, alright.

      •  Everybody was young & naive (6+ / 0-)

        once.The question is always how much one learns from the experience.

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

        by tardis10 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:50:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Because campaigning as a progressive and then (7+ / 0-)

        moving right is so mainstream democrat.  Oh, wait, it is.

        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:19:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who campaigned as a progressive? Obama didn't (7+ / 0-)

          even support marriage equality when running for office. He campaigned as a mainstream Dem. We just wanted him to govern as a progressive. He never striked me as a progressive.

          •  I Say This Over And Over Here (6+ / 0-)

            as a long time Illinois resident. He ran as a moderate, not a progressive. That is how he has always been. Always.

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

            by webranding on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:28:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Very true! He never claimed to be progressive. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              auron renouille, StellaRay

              I voted for him and will vote for him again knowing full well that he is regular Democrat. I am glad for his bold progressive moves like endorsing marriage equality etc.

              •  He most certainly did run as a progressive (11+ / 0-)

                From progressive.org

                Obama continued: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."
                He self identified as a progressive, more than once. Maybe some people knew better, but that doesn't mean he didn't mislead.

                There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:12:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, he really didn't run as a progressive (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gramofsam1, Aquarius40, doroma

                  You're cherry picking words that talk about what he believes on a philosophical level, which I think is generally true - but as far as how he would govern, and how he ran for president, in this ad on healthcare titled "two extremes" where he refers to the idea of single payer as "government run healthcare and higher taxes" he made his intentions unmistakably clear:

                  •  He ran on instituting universal health care (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    efraker, JesseCW, wu ming, ladyjames

                    not on single payer.  I know this.  He still ran as a progressive.  Talking down to people because they thought he would be progressive is just stupid.

                    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                    by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:31:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The ad literally shows him in the center (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gramofsam1, Aquarius40

                      between the "two extremes" -- if you cannot see that he is positioning himself as a centrist in this ad... well, then I guess I see why you failed to see it during the campaign too. But it was certainly there to see, plain as day.

                      •  And where did that ad run? (0+ / 0-)

                        Certainly not where I lived.

                        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                        by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:48:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  But your larger point is correct (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ladyjames

                        We should never believe politicians when they say they are progressive, they are clearly just trying to get our vote.

                        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                        by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:50:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  He ran as his definition of a progressive- (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  roubs, doroma

                  which he outlined in the comment you quote.  That might not match your definition of a progressive.
                  And as far as I can see, he still believes in the policies outlined in that comment, and has pushed for many of them.

                  •  He consistently made it appear as if he was (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    efraker

                    a progressive and, silly us, some of us thought that meant he would govern as a progressive.  The use of "Yes we can" as a slogan didn't help matters.  You do know where that came from, right?

                    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                    by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:32:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well the slogan might have come from (0+ / 0-)

                      Cesar Chavez.  Or it might have come from Bob the Builder for all I know- or care.  I don't vote on slogans.

                      I vote for the better choice.  I've done that since my first election, when the choice was Johnson, who was busy yanking my friends out of their lives to fight and maybe die in some god-forsaken jungle, or Barry fucking Goldwater.

                      It's never perfect and it's probably never gonna be.

                      •  He was clearly the better choice (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ladyjames

                        That isn't the issue here. The issue is that progressives didn't delude themselves into thinking he was progressive, he made statements and ran a campaign that gave a pretty distinct impression that he was progressive. Saying that we deluded ourselves is just wrong.

                        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                        by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:43:38 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well that's clearly your issue- (0+ / 0-)

                          but you and I watched the same campaign and did not get the same impression.  Not saying you're wrong, just that our impressions were different.  Based on what I knew of Obama, from his history and his writing, I would have described him as a left-leaning centrist.  

                          Sure he beefed up some of the progressive rhetoric for the stump speeches and tailored some of his messaging to the audience.  That's what politicians do.  They count on people hearing what they want to hear.  Obama was actually better than most- he was pretty clear that he believed in political compromise.

                          •  This whole thread was about whether (0+ / 0-)

                            he presented him self as progressive.  Go read it.  If you want to discuss other things then fine, but don't just change the subject because you're wrong.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:41:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh for god's sake- (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Unduna

                            my comment is directly about how Obama presented himself, and how people chose to interpret that presentation.
                            If you're suggesting that I'm "wrong" that Obama did not present himself as a believer in compromise, I have to conclude that you weren't paying a whole lot of attention.

                          •  The point is that people are constantly talking (0+ / 0-)

                            about how he never claimed to be progressive.  To quote the comment I originally responded to:

                            Very true! He never claimed to be progressive.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:29:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  He ran as someone who would curb civil rights (12+ / 0-)

            abuses and stop the absurd war on medical marijuana, two progressive stances, and we went back on both of those.

            He also used so many progressive dog whistles in his campaign it's absurd.  You do know where "Yes we can" came from.  I'll give you a hint, it wasn't from a centrist organization.

            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:36:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Two distinct things I remember him going to left.. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sychotic1

              of H. Clinton and Edwards were the "mandates" of which I remember what he said:  You can't force people to pay for something that they already can not afford to pay for.  (may be a bit paraphrased, but pretty darned close to his actual words).  The other was leaving troops in Iraq.  Both Edwards and Clinton said they would leave x amount of troops there and Obama said he would take them ALL out.  So yeah on some things he did campaign as more liberal.  Ooops forgot one, he was going to do away with FISA if he was elected.

      •  Obama was too good at marketing (10+ / 0-)

        "hope and change" is not a slogan for a "mainstream democrat."   Which is why you see that sentiment; people feel they were sold a bill of goods that didn't deliver.  They didn't read the fine print; "Candidate may appear more progressive than advertised."

        NOW SHOWING
        Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
        Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

        by The Dead Man on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:43:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But isn't that the actual point. Obama was not (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, doroma, fcvaguy, CS in AZ, Bush Bites, MJB

      and will never be an "Occupy" President. He wasn't elected as such. He was and is a centrist. Disappointment with Obama as justification for Occupy not participating in the electoral process is just politically naive if not backward. If Occupy were a political force Obama wouldn't win the primary. The change has to come from the power of numbers. The electorate determines what kind of candidates we end up with. Not the other way around.

      “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

      by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:51:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does the electorate define what kinds of (3+ / 0-)

        candidates we have? Or what kinds of policies? Sadly,I don't think so.  

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

        by tardis10 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:56:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If we are going to have any hope of change it's (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1

          going to have to. My point is that we can't expect the great monolith of "the Democratic Party" to "give" us a progressive candidate who enacts progressive policy. First, there is too much gain to be made by unethical and non-progressive candidates. Secondly, they are going to be middle-of-the road to appeal to as many voters as possible. And in the absence of demand this is the only kind of self-selecting politician we are going to get.  The only way we are going to get them is from the bottom up. That Progressiver voters become such a force that they can't ignore it. That's exactly what the Tea Party did. Occupy  could do the same if they would stop waiting for some party to "give" them the right candidate to support.

          “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

          by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:16:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  He most certainly was not elected as a centrist (6+ / 0-)

        He was elected by a huge group of people including progressives who were led to believe that he would govern as a progressive.

        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:20:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He ran as a bipartisan centrist. Progressives (7+ / 0-)

          Projected.

          “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

          by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:26:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  From the record... (9+ / 0-)

            but bolding mine.

            After he secured the delegates required to claim the Democratic nomination, Obama found himself at a town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta, where he was grilled about whether-having run as a primary-season progressive-he was now shifting to the center.

            The Senator was clearly offended by the suggestion. "Let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center or that I'm flip-flopping or this or that or the other," he began. "You know, the people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me."

            Obama continued: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."http://www.progressive.org/...

            Your point that progressives projected doesn't seem to hold here. But I would agree that many of us from the left side always saw Barack Obama as a centrist.

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

            by tardis10 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:36:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Bullshit, progressives didn't project (9+ / 0-)

            They were led on by false campaign rhetoric and false promises.

            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:37:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with you. But as voters we need to (0+ / 0-)

              learn the difference between campaign rhetoric and promises and a persons record. If you looked past the campaigning there was no doubt that Obama was not a Progressive. It true that we shouldn't be fooled by campaigning but if we rely on campaigns to be honest we are doomed. My point is that you have to get beyond marketing in setting your expectations. And not give up just because the marketing didn't live up to reality.

              “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

              by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:47:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So we have to assume that the candidates are lying (9+ / 0-)

                And how will we know who the real progressives are?

                It's kind of funny because we still have some folks here who will call him the most progressive president since FDR.  Although, I suppose "most progressive president" is a pretty low bar to set looking back over the past 50 years.

                There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:50:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again it's sort of the difference between the way (0+ / 0-)

                  the world ought to be and the way it is.  I personally don't vote based on political rhetoric. But that is just my opinion.

                  “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

                  by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:36:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  what do you vote based upon? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Viola, Heart of the Rockies

                    If you can't rely on what a politician says... and you certainly don't want to vote based on donors (in which case there is a disturbing similarity between the GOP and DNC)... then what is left?

                    What is it, color preference? What color matches your eyes better, blue or red?

                    "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                    by efraker on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:36:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What he's done. What his history is. (0+ / 0-)

                      Who his donors are and who he's beholden to. Who he chooses as advisors and how he runs a campaign. I remember being amazed during one of the debates that Obama talked about the need to beef up the war in Afghanistan and deal more c are fully with Pakistan. Clearly that was true. I just think we don't need to put all our eggs in one (the President's) basket. He gets to do some pretty important things such as appoint Judges but policy really needs a wider base.

                      “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

                      by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:11:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There was very little history (0+ / 0-)

                        of "what he's done" when Obama ran for President.  Which made him a perfect candidate from some points of view because he had virtually no record to be examined and defended.  Of course, if we'd looked hard at his total about face on FISA, we would have seen he was way to the right of the progressive view of government and we would have wondered how he would actually govern.  Many of us were shaken up by the FISA incident and were criticized for that.  His position on coal was another warning sign.

                        If we look at his advisers pre-election, the view is misleading.  Stiglitz and Volcker were used and dumped summarily right after the election.  His cabinet appointments told us a lot, but then it was too late.  The election was over.  With Emanuel the vote was barely cast when we found he'd be Chief of Staff.  I knew that very moment we were in for a tough ride, having grown up in the Chicago area and learned Chicago-style politics first hand.

                •  Most progressive since FDR (0+ / 0-)

                  Think of Truman (integrated the military), Nixon (nearly all the major environmental legislation) and Johnson (civil rights and medicare).  Anyone who thinks Obama's the most progressive president since FDR is misreading history or uninformed.

            •  That's funny. (0+ / 0-)

              Considering most of them supported Edwards, Gravel or Kucinich in the primaries.

              "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

              by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:24:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  not the case (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tardis10

                there were a lot of us who supported obama in the primaries. i had a hunch that he would not follow through on his promises and rhetoric, but felt that he did such a profoundly good job at enunciating progressive politics in his speeches, and the way that his campaign actively engaged the progressive grassroots and disaffected voters, nonwhites and the youth, that it was still very valuable for building a future progressive majority.

                i wrote a diary on it, actually, and i stand by it today.

          •  Fooled me onc (6+ / 0-)

            However naive OWS they do demonstrate that the party failed to inspire brand loyalty in many first time voters.  That arrogance may lose them the election.

            •  which is scary n/t (0+ / 0-)

              48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam If you can't feed a hundred people, then just feed one. - Mother Teresa

              by wasatch on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:45:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And sitting it out isn't going to do much for (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aquarius40, gramofsam1

              those first time voters either. The politics of punishment has never made sense to me when the voter doing the punishing is the one who ends up hurt.

              “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

              by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:39:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  what ought they do? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ladyjames

                The 111th Congress had a president of their party, 60 caucusing Senators, and 255 members of the House, with a public option in the party platform, and they wouldn't fight for it.

                What is the sane way of getting left-wing legislation passed? Try and get that same supermajority again and hope this time they fight for it? Sounds like that old 'definition of insanity' quip.

                "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                by efraker on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:39:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You have to know there weren't 60 votes (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gramofsam1

                  for a public option. That's because we didn't and don't have enough Progressive legislators to make a difference. If we truly had the majority of votes for Provressive policy then no President could stop us. We only had some voting superiority if you took into account the political games necessary to get us there. And the trade offs. If you don't want those trade offs vote in a true veto proof majority. Refusing to vote does nothing. Complaining doesn't either. Winning does. Refusing to even enter the race assures you of the loss you predict.

                  “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

                  by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:29:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Trade offs are fine, it's the backroom deals.... (0+ / 0-)

                    selling out the progressives that aren't so great.  The public option was taken off the table before even starting to bargain.  The deal with big pharma was made before even starting to bargain.  As a VERY young 19 yr old I KNEW how to bargain to get the car I wanted for the price I wanted, I also knew how to get the pay raise I wanted as well.  NEVER bargain from the bottom ALWAYS bargain from the top, it's always worked for me.  You have understand one other thing these things were done in the mid sixties and I'm a female.  My parents didn't raise a fool.  ;)

                    •  I agree. And there is no doubt that nobody (0+ / 0-)

                      Was fighting for Progressive policy. But that's because we havent made ourselves into a political force. I know somebody who is nobody's fool knows that politicians are always going to go the way the wind blows. If Occupy could help be that wind we might see some real progress. But if they stay out of "politics" then they've probably hurt progressive causes more than helped by encouraging defeatism.

                      “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

                      by stellaluna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:05:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  This has been hashed out here (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tardis10, WisePiper, ladyjames, Nisi Prius

            ad nauseam.  When he spoke about the Constitution, I believed he would honor it.  He hasn't.  When he spoke about inclusion in health care reform and transparency in the process (you know, everyone around the table talking, with CSPAN broadcasting), I believed him.  We all know the list.

            I never expected he would be to the right of Bush on indefinite detention, pursuit whistleblowers, spying and many other civil rights issues. Based on what centrism was when I was growing up eons ago, he's to the right of center, and in some cases far to the right.

            There were a few alarm bells during the campaign and early parts of his administration, such as his reversal on FISA, a New Yorker article on his Chicago-style politics, Rick Warren at his inauguration, appointments like Geithner, Emmanuel et al., as well as those not included in his administration (Stiglitz, Reich, Dean). Our other choices were Hillary, whose policies we already knew quite a bit about, and Edwards, who talked about the right issues but was clearly a phony.

        •  He did NOT run as a progressive. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doroma, Aquarius40

          He ran as a centrist.

          From the beginning to the end, he ran as a centrist, promising compromise with Republicans all the way through from primary to national campaign.

          "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

          by Unduna on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:44:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  They're just making up history anyway. (0+ / 0-)

        They supported Obama's opponents in the primaries -- primarily Edwards and Kucinich -- and now they're acting like they made Obama.

        "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

        by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:02:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  so now Indefinite Detention is 'centrist' ? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tardis10, ladyjames

        ...and for the people that haven't heard, this administration sought an injunction (and failed) to stop the Federal Court ruling that took away that power.That is centrist'?

        Prosecuting more whistle blowers than all other Presidents combined is 'centrist'?
        Where is the 'center' in protecting those that committed massive fraud in the financial world, or protecting those that participated in and enabled acts of torture... all while prosecuting whistle blowers?

        Was it 'centrist' of him to appoint people like Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to the Cat Food Commissions, giving them the power to do what they have spent millions of dollars trying to do, which was/is cutting Social Security. Real 'centrist ' stuff there, yeah.

        There are too many more things to list but my hands hurt when I type this much, it's just that I'm tired of people trotting out the 'centrist' bunk.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:28:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think OWS is soley unhappy with Obama (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tardis10, ladyjames

        Our entire party has sucked since 2000, when they rolled over for a stolen election; throughout GW when they rolled over for a indefensible war; since 2006 when they passed their infamous "bankruptcy bill" because citizens were just so darned irresponsible but then 2007-8 came along and by gum we will do ANYTHING to protect Wall Street, etc. Let's also not forget them rolling over as one hardcore conservative judge after another was approved.

        And lets not forget them legitimizing FOX and Limbaugh by refusing to denounce them or their practices; by appearing on their shows and treating them with entirely undeserved respect, WHILE crapping all over Dems on the left.
        Etc., Etc., Etc.

        The stunning lack of principle, of courage, of leadership as exhibited by our leaders in recent years has left a very bitter taste in a lot of mouths.

        I understand there's an unavoidable chicken and egg dilemma we're faced with. But if you want to start attracting people who feel completely fucked over, you don't succeed by telling them they're wrong, or that they're unrealistic, or that they should be willing to swallow disrespect and neglect from the people they are expected to work hard to elect.

    •  That's pretty silly. (0+ / 0-)

      Considering they were all supporting Edwards or Kucinich in the primaries.

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:00:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Occupy has yet to find it's stride (21+ / 0-)

    The Tea Party has the media and billionaire sugar daddies propping it up to push a right wing agenda.

    The Tea Party is a puppet for a rigged system.

    Occupy sees the vast interconnected corruption within both parties and wants to bring that system down.

    Getting excited over "not as bad" plutocratic politicians only perpetuates the scam.
    It's time for  calling out the Democratic fat cats and demanding results from those Democrats we do support.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:40:15 AM PDT

  •  I dunno. Direct action community organizing is (22+ / 0-)

    not really about elections. Matter of fact, Alinsky's model of organizing had very little to do with gaining the favor of politicians. It's about "kicking their asses" and making them do their fucking jobs, no matter which side of the aisle or side of the issue they're on.

    Direct action community organizing is apolitical that way. It draws a battle line between the people and the politicians. They don't endorse ANYBODY or let anyone glom off their organizing efforts to get somebody elected who talks a good game and then stabs us all in the backs. Because you've endorsed one of these untrustworthy puppets now you've own their betrayal if they turn on you.

    Occupy is a unique organizing effort for the times. They start off Occupying so they can gather support and attention. If you've been part of any effort to organize against The Machine, you would know that the hardest part is to get NUMBERS. People numbers is your only strength. I thought their 99% meme was smart. It exposes the winning strategy. We outnumber them. We're just distracted by our everyday struggles to organize.

    So, I appreciate what Maher is saying here but it's easier said than done. Teabaggers claimed to not be working for the Republican Party when in fact, they were. For Occupy to commit itself to the Democratic Party, they would have to drop their whole "we're here for the people" meme. The Democratic Party is not the people at this time although it is the better ally to the people compared to the other party. For Occupy to own the Democratic Party would perhaps be risking their credibility? Those are the risks you take when you endorse any politician or political party. Of course, teabaggers went along with whatever the Republicans were selling. That's not really what Occupy is about. This comparison is majorly flawed, imo.

    Good show, though. I loved John Waters. He's my hero! :-)

    "It's not enough to acknowledge privilege. You have to resist." -soothsayer

    by GenXangster on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:47:59 AM PDT

    •  Thank you!! Good point!! (6+ / 0-)

      An important aspect of being outside of electoral politics is that you don't endorse anybody AND you don't let anyone off the hook (no free pass on torture or extra-judicial killings just because you are a democrat).

      Another important aspect is that you become a more difficult target for you opponents.  The ideas of equality of economic opportunity and ending the failed wars cuts across party lines, and you can attract supporters from all parts of the political spectrum because you are not a de facto democrat.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:49:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Its good advice. (9+ / 0-)
    But to address your main point, I don't think the camping part matters one way or the other. It is just a tactic. If it becomes unfeasible, OWS should come up with new ones.
    Keep your eyes on the prize. (121+ / 0-)

    You're not here to fight for the right to camp. Nor are you here to have a debate about general assembly rights. Nor are your hear to combat federal law enforcement conspiracies.

    You are here to keep the focus on the Top 1%'s buying off our political system and the inequality that results from it.

    Eyes on the prize. New tactics...cool. Eyes on the prize.

    I'd have no problem with OWS running primary challenges against incumbent Dems in Congress. But barring that, how about a serious effort to get people to move their money?

    Whatever the new tactics are, it is pretty clear to me marching around and camping isn't feasible anymore.

    •  If we want to maintain a system that (0+ / 0-)

      made Maher an untaxed multi-millionaire...but with some little tweaks here and there, it's great advice.

      For those of us who need actual change, it's a request that we just commit suicide in his service.

      "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

      by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:13:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  First Occupy Needs to be Founded by Billionaires (22+ / 0-)

    and promoted across the country by leading media companies.

    If you want to be like the tea "party" you have to play their game.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:57:52 AM PDT

  •  Maher is right and wrong (22+ / 0-)

    I get him wishing that Occupy worked for Democrats the way the Tea thing works for Gopers.  But he's feeding the narrative that they are somehow comparable phenomena.  The 'Tea Party' serves the GOP because it IS the GOP and has been from the start.  It was a top-down propaganda stunt where powerful Republican billionaires created a 'grass roots movement' by advertising for it on their media networks and basically giving instructions and talking points to gullible sad fools who were freaked out about a man who is both black and a Democrat winning the White House.  They did it to keep kicking the GOP trick down the road.  The insane dog and pony show where working class people vote to empower aristocrats who would gladly use them as chum if the situation warranted.  It's just another way to keep them confused and make them feel like they're doing it for themselves.

    I do love this quote

    Three years ago, the Tea Party was just a few hundred retired diabetics angry at blacks and gays for making them feel old.  But now, now they have 62 seats in Congress.  And before John Boehner makes any decision, he first has to go outside to the National Mall, and ask the former mental patient dressed as George Washington for permission.
    But he's ignoring the reason for that transformation.  It's because the Tea Party created by professional propagandists at Fox isn't the little fringe group of loonies that they took the name from.  It wasn't some great decision by those morons to make themselves effective.  They're just getting played by plutocrats as usual.  

    When the truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:07:02 AM PDT

  •  OWS is what you get when the labor movement (13+ / 0-)

    is dead. Or at least on life support.

    Does anyone remember which politicians were supported by the sit-down strikers of the 1930s? Of course not, because that's not how they rolled. But somehow, there were effective nonetheless.

    But when you are so delusional as to cough up a million dollars to the current system, and then act like you can preach about how to change that system, yeah, you're going to say stupid and ignorant stuff.

    Nothing herein should be construed to be an argument in favor of the election of Mitt Romney, who would be undeniably worse than President Obama, whatever crimes against reason, morality, liberalism and international law the latter has committed.

    by h bridges on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:14:43 AM PDT

  •  Thank you diarist (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JoanMar, oxfdblue, doroma, Aquarius40

    and thank you Bill Maher.

  •  I could not agree more with Maher (7+ / 0-)

    Occupy Wall Street did an incredible thing last year when it changed the conversation in Washington and on Wall Street from cutting spending to job growth.  It was remarkable.  They are the reason why Obama was able to reposition himself after a dreadful Spring/Summer 2011 to emerge as a strong candidate for reelection.

    Occupy can do so much more in 2012.  They can keep the conversation focused on jobs and inequality (something they've demonstrated very well).  However, they do also need to get young people and disaffected folks into the voting booth to vote for Democrats and for Obama.  It would be nice to see a bunch of unreasonable Democratic backbenchers paired up with a reasonable Democratic President.  There are enough votes and persuadable voters out there to put the GOP firmly back in the minority.  This movement has to lead the way.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:29:13 AM PDT

  •  Tea Party not OWS (9+ / 0-)

    The Tea Party move into electoral politics was orchestrated by billions of astro turf dollars and heavy manipulation by right wing media. Without that it would have remained 50 nut cases in costumes standing on a street corner. In addition the Republican party is much less a centrist party and was already a lot closer to the fringe beliefs of the Tea Parties craziest elements.

    There is no equivalent lever operating on the grass-roots of the OWS movement and the Democratic party is much more hostile to both it's base and anyone who threatens corporate patronage. So it's much more of a challenge.

  •  Thanks for diary. Agree 100% (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fcvaguy, doroma, Aquarius40

    dont' be stupid out there

  •  Keep it Simple, OWS, Don't Go Camping! (6+ / 0-)

    Don't go Camping!  Get Organized!

    Get out the Vote.  Don't waste your time, giving people and the Media, (FAUX News) reasons to make fun of what you are doing.

    Get out the vote.  Get involved.  Work in this election.  Elect the best Democrats that we have available this election, then work at improving the selection of Democrats we have available in the next election.

    Politics is not a Boy Scout Camping Trip.  That is a waste of time.  It may get your picture in the newspaper, but it will not change the long term political situation.  If you want to change the long term political situation, you have to control some votes in the legislature.

    Keep it simple.  Make it effective.  The Tea Party did it.

    Maybe OWS is not the structure, because OWS refused to accept structure, but the Democratic Party has to have a left-leaning organization in the future.  The Tea Party took the Republican because it was available.  

    The Democratic Party is what we have, so we have to use it!

    "As long as Corporations control Government, there is no reason for Government to regulate Corporations!" John Roberts, Citizens United (SNARK)

    by NM Ray on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:48:22 AM PDT

    •  We weren't camping (6+ / 0-)

      and the occupations served a very important function.  They gave us a support network for organizing.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:26:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I love when these old line liberals give (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orestes1963, wu ming, wsexson

        advice to occupy.  They know nothing about Occupy as the silly comparison to the tea party shows.  

        Maher is the kind of smug, pompous liberal ass we--and in fact the entire real democratic party--need to run from, not heed.

        “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” - Harriet Tubman

        by Publius2008 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:43:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  AoT - Organizing WHAT? I'm not saying (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1

        you weren't. I'm just trying to figure out what EXACTLY you were organizing?   Camping out in Zucciotti ssn't "organizing" unless something direct comes from it.

        What is that? What are you doing?

    •  You don't understand revolution (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisePiper, ozsea1, ladyjames

      But maybe you just feel it's not time for one.  I can understand that.  A revolution is a scary prospect.  You really do need to have a majority of the people on your side to pull one off.  We don't have that sort of agreement yet. Personally, I am conflicted myself.  I am not sure I see the path forward to reform just through the electoral process but I am not sure I want to be a full pledged part of a revolution.  Damn, I just want to see things change for the better already.  Too much has gine sour, too fast.

      As far as tactics go, occupying space is a powerful tactic in a non-violent revolution.  That's precisely why the government shut it down!

      Camping ... yes that would be silly.  Occupying space to shut the government down and rally the masses that would be a revolution IF it can be maintained over time.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:46:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  noofsh - OWS is not a revolution. (0+ / 0-)

        Occupying "space" gets you nothing unless you DO something specific to change the political landscape.

        You are deluding yourself terribly.

        "As far as tactics go, occupying space is a powerful tactic in a non-violent revolution.  That's precisely why the government shut it down!"

        Uh, really? "The Government?"  OK, let's go with that idea:  if that's so, then why hasn't OWS come back once again to "occupy space" any space?  Central Park, William Street, South Street Seaport? Maybe they just petered out on their own watch...

  •  Re: OWS "Power and significance" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque, ladyjames

    Huh? what power would that be, I wonder? it certainly isn't political or economic power. Dodd-Frank still isn't passed, nobody from Wall St. went to prison, and our economy still stinks.

    Believe me, I support OWS. Maher is correct, we need to get progressive butts in congressional seats.

    Again, we have to take actual actions within the system, not terminally talk about actions, never accomplishing anything.

    Congresspeople love their jobs; who wouldn't? SIX figure salary, great benefits, and get tons of time off. want to get their attention? then throw a bunch of them out of office and replace them- just like the teapaty did.

    That's just for starters.

    "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

    by Superpole on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:50:14 AM PDT

  •  He's right nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:55:25 AM PDT

  •  You want our version of the tea party? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NM Ray, AoT, efraker

    They got important by running candidates from the right against established Republicans.  They won primaries.  Several lost in the general election,  but this did not lessen their chilling effect upon Republicans who secretly held "moderate" views, or who wanted to "actually govern."  

    So You're saying you want to run people to the left our established Democratic politicians who show a tendency toward the center?  And this would be helpful in what way?

    (It's not that there are not many Democrats on my personal right,  it's that I see what the tea party has done is to guarantee permanent gridlock.  We need to actually get some work done).

    I hope all of you who know just exactly what OWS needs to do to become effective are attending their GAs and demonstrations.

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

    by RedBlueNoMore on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:56:15 AM PDT

    •  Of course they aren't attending GAs (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      efraker, wu ming, ladyjames

      They just post endlessly about what Occupy needs to do on the internet without actually getting involved.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:48:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  LOL (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      efraker, aliasalias, Viola

      I doubt that any of them ever attended a GA or participated in even one OWS action.

      Of course, they don't get it.  Because most have excluded a non-violent revolution as a legitimate form of politics.  So they keep coming back to elections.  I can understand that. But to expect OWS to become a left oriented tea party is silly.  The reason the tea party can buck the GOP and primary them is they are funded by corporate billionaires who want them to do that!  OWS can't muster that sort of money.  

      But you make a great point.  Suppose OWS took on as their mission running candidates to left of Democratic candidates in primaries.  I bet that would make them even more hated by the Bill Maher's of the world.

      Mr Maher, exactly what do you want?  Seems to me that you are as much a keeper of the status quo as most wealthy people.  You are no doubt more humane than the right wing greed heads but do you really want a more democratic government?  Okay so would Maher put his money where his mouth is.  Here's my challenge to Bill.  Use your money to bring in OWS volunteers into the political process.  Try to field a slate of candidates that are to the left of the Dems in primaries and let's see how it works out.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:53:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Facile, as always (7+ / 0-)

    What the glib Maher fails to point out that the Tea Party has UNLIMITED FUCKING CASH. But, hey, I'm sure OWS can come up with a few billionaire sociopaths to fund the movement.

    "I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's." - William Blake

    by Tod Westlake on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:59:03 AM PDT

    •  Moveon does OK on the fundraising front. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Aquarius40

      Why can't you emulate them?

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:09:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because then you start selling out for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ladyjames

        certain fund raising sources.

        •  What about the Paulites? (0+ / 0-)

          "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

          by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:11:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the movement of paul will vanish (0+ / 0-)

            the day Paul goes away.  That isn't what OWS is trying to accomplish.  They had money coming in when the encampments were in high gear.  That shows there is sympathy for their point of view.  But the numbers were too small and the police destroyed the encampments.  Lessons learned.  Occupying space is powerful but only when your numbers are large.  Occupying space just as a protest is a waste of time.  

            So really do you think OWS people can be brought into electoral politics en masse?  I can tell that you would be advised to look for volunteers elsewhere.

            "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

            by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:38:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Anyone who takes money is a sellout? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aquarius40, gramofsam1

          So, in order to avoid being a sellout, you want to take no money at all.

          Can't elect 62 crazy mofo's to Congress, in Maher's phrasing, or elect anyone to anything for that matter, with no money at all.

          You're saying that you want Occupy to take a vow of abstinance from the political process?

          If your answer to that question is no, then you agree money is needed... so where is the money going to come from?

          Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

          by MJB on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:26:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  moveon has been utterly useless (0+ / 0-)

        since their very inception, urging congress to "censure bill clinton and then move on" instead of impeaching him over a blow job.

        they are the very definition of feckless wannabe insider centrists.

  •  The tea party was formed silently (0+ / 0-)

    way before anybody knew it.  I think it was formed along with Sarah Palin becoming Governor.   Maybe even years before that.  Grooming of Rand Paul too?

    The way Mitt Romney will not tell you what his plans are.  He says he knows how to fix it and get people back to work but he does not say a word about how.  No different then Scott Walker.  Talks in plain nothing and then turns on the people once he is elected.  The Republican candidates are George Bush with Handlers.  Get in office and the rest will be handled.  Enough digits to hold a pen.  PERIOD.  Their Christian/Republicans will vote regardless what they say or do.  It's their religion.

    Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all - The Internationale by Billy Bragg

    by Paddy999 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:59:51 AM PDT

  •  Epic fail, Bill (5+ / 0-)

    OWS stands outside of the failed political process in this country for a reason.

    "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

    by US Blues on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:11:30 AM PDT

  •  Remember the deep pockets behind the Tea Party (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson, efraker, wasatch, ladyjames

    "They" didn't do what he says they did. Much bigger players, from Fox to the Kochs did it, using the Tea Party as a brand.

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:26:11 AM PDT

  •  You can't change the country with drum circles. (7+ / 0-)

    I was a big supporter of the Occupy movement but I'm with Bill on this. The demonstrations last year were valuable because they changed the narrative the media was focused on... for a while. They are pretty much being ignored now.

    The only way to make real change is to participate in the political process. Put up candidates in primaries, phone bank, go door to door --- you know, the stuff that actually helps you win an election.

    If OWS hates Democrats so much and don't want to run under the Democratic banner, fine - run as a new party. But don't expect to get support from the Daily Kos community because we aren't here to create a third party. We're here to elect more and BETTER Dems. If that's not what you are for, guess what? You are not welcome here - per Kos himself.

    If OWS doesn't understand participating in the political process is how you actually do make change happen then they are a lost cause.

  •  I think Maher makes the mistake of thinking the (15+ / 0-)

    ... Tea Party and Occupy are analogous movements. And I don't think they are. Yes, the Tea Party pushed from the right and Occupy, generally, has pushed from the left, but beyond that, the movements are different animals.

    As many other have noted upthread, the Tea Party was founded by deep pocket billionaires who stirred the pot, rented buses, set up "tours," staged events, used Fox News as its organizing tool, and employed political strategists to create simple messaging that could be repeated by those folks who mistakenly believed they were participating in a "grassroots" movement.

    In other words, all the Tea Party ended up being was an active, on-the-ground presence for a bunch of wealthy plutocrats who saw it as their best opportunity to leverage racial resentment among far right voters to accomplish all the things the plutocrats have been trying to get for years: unfettered ability to pollute, the shredding of the social safety net, the gutting of the tax system and the implementation of even more laws that give them inherent advantages.

    They did all this while working within the structure of the Republican Party because they knew that in order to get the laws changed in their favor, they needed more people willing to do their bidding in Washington at at state capitals around the country.

    Occupy, for better or worse, was none of these things. It wasn't dedicated to working within the Democratic Party. It wasn't funded by one particular group. It didn't have highly-compensated political professionals drawing up its strategic messaging. Sure, Ad Busters kicked off the process, but truly, there was no one "in charge."

    That simple fact has been both the biggest plus and, perhaps, the most confounding thing about Occupy. Where is it going and what are its messages? The answers are as varied as the participants.

    Maher makes points about Occupy that seem to focus around these two questions, above, but his initial assumption that the two movements are analogous is not accurate.

    •  Agree that they aren't analogous (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unduna, gramofsam1

      but, one can draw comparisons on tactics and effectiveness. IMO, Bill feels much like I do, a sadness at opportunities lost. You could feel the desire in the rest of the 99% to hop on, hell I ran to our local Occupy loaded down with tents and food supplies just to contribute.

      I mentioned the OWS diaries on dkos and that it was a progressive website. Oh! Horrors! "We don't want to be left or right" meanwhile Ron Paul signs fluttered in the breeze and dude told me "Who are we to tell them they can't be here?" wtf?

      At the beginning there was loads of attention, now it's gone. Coulda been a contender.

      "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

      by high uintas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:22:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bill can be a dick sometimes... (8+ / 0-)

    he's saying what the corporate media says about ows except he's trying to be a comedian. If ows was so ineffective, why was there a federally coordinated nationwide effort to crush it? The boss is scared shitless that something like ows will catch fire - people going out in the street is the end of the game for them. OWS threatens to upend their whole divide and conquer strategy by reuniting people against the 1%. Does he think we didn't engage the political process in Wisconsin? Take back Wisconsin indeed.

    when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

    by bunsk on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:40:21 AM PDT

  •  "OWS" needs to evolve, not become Dem Party grassr (9+ / 0-)

    oots organization.

    Though the US media has kept a blackout, activists, students, workers have been having protests and strikes in Montreal for months. They have been doing it the old fashion way, not through "Occupy" methods. I think this is what the people have participating in OWS should have been aiming for and need to do now.

    OWS has become a distraction for those involved, like other human created organisms. Its survival becomes more important than anything else. It was useful and served its purpose at the time.

    Anyway, Bill Maher's suggestions are ridiculous. OWS participants, on the whole, are frustrated with both parties. They are not a bunch of Democrats who love camping and protesting. Why would they go out of their way to support a party that has led to them go out and protest in the first place? It'd just kill the beginning of the rebirth of left grassroots organizing in the US.

  •  The man speaks the truth. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

    by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:56:04 AM PDT

  •  What does Maher know about Occupy? (13+ / 0-)

    Maher is really good on some things.  On other things he really sucks.

    This time, he sucks.  In fact, whenever he gets up on the high horse and condescends, there is a really good chance that what he is saying is really going to suck.

    I'm sure it makes him feel better and superior.  And it makes some other people decide that they should condescend and feel superior too. But it doesn't help a damned thing.

    Maher sits in his air conditioned studio and holds court, acting a lot like the village pundits who do nothing but prop up the status quo while other people are out on the street trying to bring about real change.

    Maher is a blowhard.  In this situation, he really doesn't know wtf he is talking about.  He should get out more.  Does he get out and mix with real people at all?


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:15:26 AM PDT

    •  No, he's right. OWS needs to evolve from reaction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40

      to action.

      •  Says who? (15+ / 0-)

        I've been doing the partisan form of "action" for years now and making phone calls or writing diaries to urge others to take the same "action".

        Some of those things are still worth while, like contacting Congress or the White House to let them know that we are paying attention and to urge them one way or another on some issue.

        But for the most part, it has been an utter failure for the past six years.  They don't listen to us. They listen to their corporate masters.

        So getting out on the street and looking for entirely new ways to participate in our democracy is a hell of a lot more valuable in my eyes, right now.  

        There is room for both, you know?  OWS doesn't have to evolve into another partisan hack activist organization who sits in on conference calls from the sol called leadership of the party telling them what to focus on, what stance to take.

        And if they started a third party and fielded candidates in an OWS party, you'd hate that too.

        They are doing, I should say we are doing because I am part of OWS too -- we are doing exactly what we should be doing.  This is a movement, not another kabukia fake-assed candidate who gets swallowed up by the machine as soon as they are elected, no matter what good intentions they had to start with.    Electoral activism is not the only way.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:43:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe one of the reasons no one is (0+ / 0-)

          listening to you is that generally speaking, you're rude and abrasive to those Dems who want to work within the system. You seem to believe that YOUR WAY is THE WAY.  Hell, I don't pay attention to you either.

          "So getting out on the street and looking for entirely new ways to participate in our democracy is a hell of a lot more valuable in my eyes, right now."

          But that's just the thing: you're NOT participating in democracy, you're standing outside of it claiming it needs to change by your rules.

      •  Electioneering is not the only way to take action (6+ / 0-)

        And OWS has taken plenty of different actions.  They just don't have the time or money to run campaign ads talking about them.

        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:53:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  maher is dead wrong (0+ / 0-)

      Let's face it, the main reason that the tea party can do what they do is that they have massive money behind them.  What money does OWS have behind it?  There's no way that OWS can succeed as a political movement electing Dems to office right now.  It has become a well organized revolutionary movement.  In that sense, I agree that OWS is a mess.  I see no plan for enacting a revolution.  That's probably because of the leadership structure.  

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:04:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Internet is a hell of an ATM. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40

        Look at the Paullites.

        OWS doesn't appear to know what it wants to be, because it could raise big money if it was organized.

        "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

        by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:07:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hard to do that as a leaderless movement (3+ / 0-)

          What strikes me is how cultist the Paulites are.  I think it's all about Paul more than anything else.  When Paul drops out of politics, and he will eventually, there will be no Paulite movement.  

          So it's a bit hard for me to see how a leaderless movement like OWS raises lots of money.  They did raise money when they had people excited about the occupations.  But you know the story. Their numbers were too small and the police broke them up.

          Consider this an experiment in building a people powered mass movement.  It didn't accomplish much except change the narrative for awhile but it shows the potential that is out there.  I think it's a matter of time before a larger movement can be galvanized.  Then we'll see where that goes.

          In the meantime, are you really thinking you can bring in people who think largely along revolutionary lines into the fold and get them to campaign for Obama?  Waste of time!  Move on.

          "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

          by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:21:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is where (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          efraker, aliasalias, Viola, ladyjames

          I think people really don't get it.

          Because OWS is not on your TV every night, you think they are not successful.

          But what you are forgetting is that inequality was not even being discussed in the mainstream a year ago.  Why is it being discussed now?  Because of OWS.

          Foreclosures were being swept under the rug while the crime of the century continued.  Why was that issue brought to the forefront? Because of OWS.  Schneiderman admitted that on Thursday night.

          The banks were sailing along, continuing their fraud and excessive risk.  And the whole issue of organized crime banking and the bail out was beginning to fade, though nobody had forgotten about it, they just internalized that anger and frustration.  Now, the issue of the criminal banks is at the forefront everywhere. Why? Because of OWS.

          Our goal right now is not to get behind Democratic candidates or to form a party and influence candidates.  Our goal is to pressure the incumbents and the candidates who are already running in two parties who are not very different anymore -- they are two wings of the same corporate banking military party.  Our goal is to change the narrative and put politicians and leaders on the spot.  Our goal is to inform people and to make people feel empowered and realize the power they already have.  Our goal is to change the system.  Becoming a candidate with a D next to your name is not the only way to do that and in fact, probably not a very effective way of doing that right now that money rules the parties.  

          We have to expose what is happening.  When people realize what is happening and get out from under the propaganda and disillusionment and feeling of powerlessness, they can rise up in peaceful protest and make it very uncomfortable for politicians who are not working for our best interests.  And hopefully, steps can be taken toward changing the system and the ways in which our elected representatives can be bought.

          OWS is in a big sense, the response to at least thirty years of conservative brainwashing in this country.


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:05:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I admire the goals (0+ / 0-)

            I just feel that none of them, not one is being accomplished. It could have been, hell everyone was talking about the 99%, now? Not so much. The same people who were all about income inequality don't give a good gawd damn.

            They want plans and action, not concepts. Most of the people have figured out the big secret, without policy that can be enacted through law and power nothing gets done. That's why the banksters had drinks on the balcony laughing, they knew they were already home free.

            Yeah, like TomP I'm feeling kinda cynical today, too.

            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

            by high uintas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:54:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "They want plans and actions, not concepts" (0+ / 0-)

              Fine - Let's hear yours. Why is it up to OWS?

              •  I see what you did there (0+ / 0-)

                Somehow we are no longer talking about the goals of OWS, we are talking about how I would achieve...what? OWS' goals? My goals? Or maybe the lack of action that is causing people to forget about the whole Occupy movement? I don't know.

                I have a different agenda and it involves electing more and actually better Dems. Getting the obstructionist throw-back party out of office and moving a more progressive agenda. That involves being active in party politics, supporting candidates and expressing political positions. OWS isn't interested in that icky stuff.

                "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                by high uintas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:33:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OWS isn't interested in that icky stuff (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  high uintas, joanneleon

                  Your words, but NO, OWS is not looking at the country through the lens of electoral politics. It's fine that you feel that your goals are "better" or "more realistic" or whatever. You certainly have that right. But so do they.

                  If you want to change the Dem party from the inside and you need help to do it then you have to attract others to your cause. Which means targeting people who can be persuaded to agree with you. Right now those folks probably aren't OWS. Which is why I disagree with Maher's whole contention. There's plenty of other disaffected people in the country looking for answers and they might make better targets.

                  What Maher and others are seeing re:OWS is a bunch of people who are clearly engaged, so he figures you grab the folks who have exhibited the capacity to care and to act, and you try to harness their energy. It makes sense on one level, but it's misguided because "that which creates the energy" in OWS is different.

                  I would argue that instead we should all try to make use of one of OWS's central "tenets": do whatever charges you up. If you believe something, make a plan and do it. Don't waste effort or energy on trying to convince people who aren't attracted to your plan to join you; find people who are.

                  Everyone that keeps saying "OWS" should do this or that seems to be operating from the premise that they are all there is. As though we have a finite number of potential activists in this country and all of them are in OWS. I don't believe that, but I do believe that to get new people involved there has to be something that attracts them and it isn't going to be "more of the same".

                  •  I appreciate your response (0+ / 0-)

                    My issue isn't that there is "a finite number of activists" I know that activists abound everywhere. I'm just seeing a lot of potential that I believe is being squandered.

                    It's rare for any gathering of activists to manage to grab the spotlight and I do realize that OWS faced some really tough head winds (along with head thumps) but it seemed like when they needed help the most they thumbed their noses at any potential allies.

                    I was extremely excited when it started and couldn't wait to do what I could for the cause. I was willing to sit back and not get too frustrated at their lack of political leanings. I was even more excited when the idea of the 99% took off and the rug of Wall St. got disturbed enough for the bugs to start running about. "Good, I thought. It's time for America to see who's running the show".

                    (If you are going to ask me why my own ass wasn't out there with them, I did go with a car full of tents and OTC drugs, food, clothing and supplies. Our local SLC one is 35 miles from me, I can't drive because of an eye condition and frankly can't camp out in my own damn yard. I'm an early boomer and I think I broke myself back in the day. I have a horrible back w/many herniated disks.)

                    What got to me was watching the Paulistas co-opt so much of what was happening here and the incoherence of the message. When I talked to people about it most had no idea what it was about after a short time. They just saw a bunch of hippies playing hacky sack. They would march past the Wells Fargo building, have a go at yelling, and very little else got out.

                    I think that what Maher got stuck in his craw is what has been bothering me, this could have really changed more than it did. Like it or not we are in a political world and there are actors on the scene that I believe are truly dangerous to our hopes, our children's hopes, and our planet.

                    We need to fight for that future so that we CAN disagree about our tactics in the future. I'm seriously that worried, I don't think I've ever been this (excuse the expression) concerned before. I believed that OWS was a way that we could change the language, mess with the talking points, and for awhile it did. Maybe it will again, I guess we have to wait and see.

                    Thank you for the discussion.

                    "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                    by high uintas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:12:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I don't buy that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ladyjames

              and I saw some of the condescending comments (like this one) that you rec'd which indicates a different attitude entirely.

              This statement is just nonsense.

              The same people who were all about income inequality don't give a good gawd damn.
              Income inequality is still at the forefront.  The austerity campaign, backed by extremely powerful people in this country who have billions to spend on it and have the corporate media in their pocket, is back in full force. But they have a different environment to deal with now, and the income inequality issue is not going away anytime soon.
              That's why the banksters had drinks on the balcony laughing, they knew they were already home free.
              Nobody is taking the banks down easily. We all know that. This is a long game because the people who are in charge of regulating them and prosecuting them are slow walking this thing or refusing to prosecute. They've got the politicians, some of the Fed board, other agencies protecting them.  They've got a WH appointed gate keeper for all regulations, Sunstein.  

              But before OWS, the whole issue was just largely ignored.  Since OWS, the banks are back in that big, bright spotlight.  Look what just happened with JP Morgan? Do you think that would even have been that big a deal if not for OWS?

              The foreclosure fraud: Schneiderman admitted on Thursday night that it was OWS that caused it to get more focus and caused that task force to be created.  It was sellout by the AGs, yes, and a horribly small response to massive fraud and the crime of the century, but it was such a big issue during January because of OWS and the spin offs like Occupy Homes, that the president felt the urgent need to create a task force that would be announced at the State of the Union address.  A giant spotlight was shone on the settlement with the AGs.  Illegal foreclosures got much more attention because OWS teamed up with other advocates and stood out in front of foreclosed homes with the families being evicted.  They went to foreclosure courts like the one in Brooklyn and stood up and sang protest songs to disrupt the proceedings.  They shocked people. They made the news.

              And that is only a few things that they did.  They also shined a giant light on police brutality, Stop and Frisk, on the erosion of civil rights.  

              I just don't buy what you're selling, uintas.  I think it is much more likely that you're carrying the partisan attitude with a resentment that OWS protesters are not using their energy to do the old GOTV stuff, and that you're worried that their protests will bring to light the failures and betrayals of Dem leadership during an election year.


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:54:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  joanneleon: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joanneleon

                The income inequality is surely still in the spotlight.  I don't know why people are saying otherwise.  I know that NPR gets bashed here a lot, but this week I was listening off and on AND it was being discussed.  With the unemployment numbers coming out, the jobs being produced (well NOT being), austerity in the EU etc. it's back in the spotlight again. In other words I'm backing up your first paragraph. :)  (sometimes I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear)

              •  I didn't rec your comment (0+ / 0-)

                I wouldn't rec that comment, cus I really don't want anything you are selling, but I agree with you, it was condescending.

                I think I've been pretty clear where I stand, that doesn't mean that I can't admire what was started with OWS. I don't like what it ended up as and if I'm totally honest, I do think it's pretty much done. There isn't any glue holding it together.

                Yes, they pulled attention to issues like the one's you mentioned. IMO foreclosure was already in the light, they showed ways to fight it by co-opting methods that other groups like City Life/Vida Urbana were already using clear back in '09.

                As for the police brutality, I mentioned it briefly in a comment but it does deserve more attention. It's horrific and it is only getting worse and no, I'm not blaming OWS for that. I believe the only way it stops is to change the balance of power and now we are back to politics.

                I'm a Democrat, I never hid that nor did I lie in what I said about my admiration for OWS at it's beginning. You, through your comments make it abundantly clear that you don't like the party and that's your business. I don't care what you believe, I do get irritated by the venom you use at times.

                Don't infer that I'm a liar because I don't buy into your whole philosophy. I think you are just spinning your wheels, but that's just my opinion. Also, I think it's rich that you consider it an insult that someone on a Democratic blog wants Democrats to win. Hilarious in fact.

                "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                by high uintas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:54:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, it was the parent comment (0+ / 0-)

                  that I meant to link.  

                  I don't much care whether you buy into my philosophy or not.  People have differing opinions. What I'm not crazy about is the way that the hyper partisans here want to dictate to the OWS movement about what they should or should not be doing.

                  Our partisan way has not worked. Things keep getting worse and worse.  My thought is that a lot of the old hyper partisans should do more listening than pontificating these days.

                  But it won't happen.  There will still be people like you sniping at new ideas and new movements from the sidelines, trying to get them to make more phone calls, and not realizing that the reason so many people are so disillusioned is not because they didn't get enough phone calls asking them for money and telling them to get out and vote.  

                  As long as partisans just cheer for the D team and never pressure them to do things that actually make a difference in people's lives, to own up to their own failures and start actually caring  more about the people than the money, it's all a game of smoke and mirrors.  Do they think that electing more Democrats is actually going to change anything? No they don't because Democrats had a lot of power for six years now and they haven't actually changed anything significantly enough to make a difference in people's lives.

                  So we need to do something different because our way is not working.  


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:26:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  No one is listening to OWS (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas

          anymore.  The initial excitement has died down dramatically and OWS doesn't seem to have the vision to resurect it.  I'd say a good amount of the country has just tuned them out.

          When do you think OWS will figure this out?

  •  Is Maher willing to set up a legal fund? (11+ / 0-)

    Because the movement is getting hammered by the police, DOJ, FBI and every other LEO and attorney who wants to run them out of business.

    "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." Edward R. Murrow

    by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:34:40 AM PDT

    •  right--how many tea partiers ever had to face (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, MJB, efraker, wu ming, Viola

      police brutality and oppression?  Zero.  And many of those lunatics were carrying guns when they gathered.   Double standard, anyone?  

      However, I completely agree that Occupy has to find ways of working the system as it is (and as bad as it is) and then get in there and start changing it.  

      I'm convinced this will come about, but I'm not sure how long it will take.

      If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

      by livjack on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:39:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There were no police to meet the armed tea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wasatch, wu ming

    party at the town meetings about health care.  

    Don't tell me that OWS should be more like the tea party.  Maybe OWS should get to the voting booth, but they will never be the tea party.

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:39:40 AM PDT

  •  I think he's right (5+ / 0-)

    I suspect highly at least half the populaton has no idea what OWS stands for, and has probably bought into the narrative that they're a bunch of pot smoking hippies.

    And will OWS in it's current form really be able to organize in places that aren't filled with people that are more likely to agree with them...meaning conservatives areas of the country?

    The Tea Party is in my state. NJ. Unbelievable and something I never would have thought, but it's true. A right winged nutjob Ayn Rand cult has not only moved into my state but is getting people elected to state office, from liberal counties filled with people who are buying into their message.

    I get what Maher is saying here.

    "When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain

    by Moon Mop on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:40:19 AM PDT

    •  really I see no evidence of that in NJ? (1+ / 0-)

      Please explain ...

      It's true that OWS is disorganized.  That's because they are conflicted about what they want to do.  You can't be just a protest movement.  That has no effect in the long run.  It's unlikely that OWS can rally voters ... with what resources?  They don't have american prosperity pac dumping millions into them.  What does that leave?  Really only one thing - revolution. But to have a successful revolution you must have a plan and so far I see no evidence they have a plan.  Of course part of that plan is to rally support from the majority of people so that at the very least they are sympathetic to the goals of the revolution.  But that's not enough.  There has to be a concerted effort to attack the pillars of the society and bring them into the revolution's point of view.  I don't see that at all.

      anyway waiting for ows to go political is silly.  I think Maher is dead wrong.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:00:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good point, teahadists go into hostile territory (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40

      But how visible is Occupy in deep-red states?  Outside of college towns, that is.

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:32:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Moon Mop - Excellent point. The teabaggers (0+ / 0-)

      will go anywhere and pitch their message.  They will stay and yell at whatever, whomever as long as possible.

      Here in NYC, OWS can find common ground but go to upstate NY and it's a whole 'nother can of worms.

  •  Bill Maher can go fuck himself.... (7+ / 0-)

    Occupy saw this coming. Taking it from the streets to the voting booth to vote for either of the two corporate candidates would be a total sell out. Sure, there will be Occupy folks who will quietly vote for Obama. But they are not going to get a whole lot of support if they try to manipulate the Occupy group into endorsing a candidate. There are ways to real change that don't involve selling out. But Maher has his...right? It's very seldom I would take advice from a multi-millionaire.

  •  Occupy revving up for summer? Lol (3+ / 0-)

    You mean like it revved up for winter and spring. That's a joke.

  •  won't work (0+ / 0-)

    because we don't have the money behind us that the tea party has.  the right direction is a mass movement that leads to a revolution.  the political system has failed us.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:54:36 AM PDT

  •  Confirms my decision to never watch him. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:58:29 AM PDT

    •  for a while I got free HBO and I checked each nite (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt

      to see whom he would have on the show and sometimes I was really happy to  see someone whose activism I really respect get some airtime, but he would invariably have a poison pill guest (on the Ann Coulter level) on the same lineup. I wouldn't watch.

      I don't remember watching more than one or two shows, and I can't remember those, because he gave too much airtime to people that shouldn't be able to get a minute on  tv unless it was for a perp walk. It seemed he just had to throw in one poison pill guest all the time, or at least that's what I was seeing until I quit checking.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 02:12:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Some of us were saying that (6+ / 0-)

    way back at the beginning of OWS. Street protests are a great start but they cannot substitute for political action. I made the point at the time that the street protests should have moved to Park Avenue where the Wall Street crooks live. At least make it hard for the pricks to sleep. The fact that it turned into an extended camping trip was a shame because it needed to become a guerilla movement that constantly harassed and disrupted Wall Street's daily business by use of flash crowds and other instant protests that constantly shifted tactics. Targeting different firms for occupation that included information sheets about that day's target could have been very effective. But amorphous masses don't create revolutions and major change. The masses lead by a strategically unified vanguard do. Just read the history of the civil rights movement. A lot of people still think Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a whim. It was in fact a carefully planned ploy to initiate a bus boycott and desegregate transit. The list of such actions is long but the discipline, focus and genius of that movement has been lost under the happy quilt of the "I have a dream" meme.

    The universe may have a meaning and a purpose, but it may just specifically not include you.

    by Anne Elk on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:00:31 AM PDT

  •  Truth hurts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, Aquarius40

    And the defensive excuses from Occupiers are getting tiresome. It's pretty funny when they accuse Maher of being an elitist millionaire, when only people comfortably middle class and without kids could  afford to camp out for weeks.

    •  maher is on drugs (0+ / 0-)

      I mean really get real.  How exactly is OWS going to mobilize as an effective political force when there is no money behind them?  

      I think he fails to grasp that many people (probably the majority of OWS) don't feel the electoral system works.  They are hardly unjustified in that believe when billions can be dumped into elections anonymously.

      We have a huge problem here.  I doubt conventional politics can fix it.  We'll need a mass movement to fix it.

      Camping out is a good tactic but only when you have overwhelming numbers.  OWS lacked the numbers so the police were able to disperse them.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:48:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here is what Maher doesn't understand (9+ / 0-)

    Everybody knows about the top-down Freedom Works incarnation of the Tea Party. What many don't know is that before there was something known as the Tea Party there was a grass roots movement amongst a small subset of the Republican party along with Libertarians and Constitutional Law and other types of organizations that had organized themselves to hijack the Republican Party.

    They didn't go out and gather signature and get their candidates on the ballot or even organize GOTV. Nothing of the sort. What they did was to organize and mobilize their small group of people and actually show up for Republican Party internal elections. Precinct leaders, nominating committee members, party structure positions of all sorts, delegates to state conventions and committees, county level positions, etc.

    Because political parties tend to set these kinds of elections for times when most people aren't available say, 10:30am on a Wednesday the party establishment is able to maintain control of the party since the vast majority of the rank and file are working, etc. These groups that later became co-opted under the Tea Party banner pulled off an insurgency and took over a significant number of internal Republican Party positions and they were then able to nominate and have on the ballot that whole swath of crazy.

    Freedom Works and other organizations were a response to this action. To create a different rallying point, bring in more people so as to dilute the influence of the insurgents and buy off those they could. The establishment ended up being successful in their co-option, despite having a number of candidate slates out of their control - many of the nut cases in Federal and state legislature.

    You'll notice that the establishment has been able to re-assert control over many of the local and state level internal offices by the candidates nominated and efforts to keep pre-Tea Party groups from getting candidates on the ballot or getting any significant votes in primaries, etc. of late. Not that those candidates are any good at all, but they aren't all coming out of the insurgent camp.

    This whole battle within their party has come on top of the whole religious right - especially the dominionist and armageddonist crowd - hijacking the national party efforts and forcing the likes of Palin into higher office candidacy. That battle still continues. Ramming Romney through as the nominee is the in-your-face monied and establishment counter-strike to the action last time around.

    This effort hasn't been so successful. The religious groups are the GOTV army of the Republicans. They don't accept Romney at all. Republicans will have an uphill climb as their GOTV will be stunted. Votes will be lost. Worse, a fairly sizable portion of the pre-Tea Party effort consisted of stand-alone dominionist and armageddonist churches and they haven't gone away and have taken the Koch money and will use it against the Republican establishment in upcoming cycles.

    Why the Democratic Party didn't take advantage of the schism at the national level with the hijacking by the armageddonists and the lower level schism with the hijacking by the nut cases is what is worrisome and plays right into the notion of two parties protecting the interests of the corporations and their wealthy owners.

    Now, if what Bill Maher wants is for Occupy to show up at internal Democratic Party official elections and hijack nominating committees, etc. and force the establishment Democrats to have to fight an insurgency and create a multi-election cycle expensive battle for the control of the Party - I am all for that. But I don't think that is what he really wants, nor do I think that is what you want.

    By not joining the political fray, as both the Republican and Democratic Party establishments both desire, they avoid the destructive co-option that would ensue. Occupy gets to continue to do whatever they prefer to do while the rest of the nation gets to see even more complete dysfunction by both parties, disastrous "bi-partisanship", and Kabuki theater as both establishment parties pursue their relentless goals of the continued enrichment and protection of the 1%.

    The longer that continues the worse it gets for both of the parties and the worse it gets for Americans in general which in turn will lead more Americans looking for alternatives to the two entrenched parties and the desire to wrest control from them. The one percent has put themselves on a self-destructive path that they seem unwillingly to change and if it continues too much longer will be unable to change.

    If Occupy were to become political it will likely be to take advantage of the weakness in approval and support of the establishment parties to destroy both of them and then to undertake building a government that represents the interests of more than 1 in 100 people. But I don't see Occupy becoming a political movement anytime soon.

    On a much simpler note, equating the kinds of things that Occupy has advocated for with what the Tea Party and the nut cases want to do - as if Occupy is a left-wing version of batshit crazy - is disingenuous at best.

    •  Republican GOTV will be stunted? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40

      You mean, like it was in Wisconsin when Scott Walker was crushed in the recall election?

      Oh, wait.

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:36:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brian B

        Walker isn't running against Obama. Evangelicals no doubt had no problem GOTV and voting for Walker in the recall election Tuesday. Why?

        Walker ISN'T a Mormon. Romney is. Because of the way the devout evangelicals view Mormonism - a blasphemous abomination at best and a polytheist cult at worst.  That will cost Romney votes and GOTV support.  

        How much that will affect Romney depends entirely on how many of the electorate and GOTV machine are evangelicals. If you look at where Romney had his best outcomes in contested primaries those states were where there were a much smaller proportion of evangelicals in the voter base.

        In every state any lack of evangelical support will cost Romney some votes and GOTV support. And it does Romney no good to show up with various pastors or get their endorsement as it is the devout rank and file members of those individual churches that will not go along with it.

        As it is Romney does best in states that will mostly go to Barack Obama come November.

  •  heh ... truth hurts ... (7+ / 0-)

    If the progressive echo chamber had any real power we'd be in the 2nd Dean administration (and better off for it)

    I support OWS but the 99% phrase is presumptuous, pretentious and off putting to many who should be our allies.

    I'm not keeping track but, at least from the above transcript, it seems the immediate plans are to play into the (partially accurate) stereotype that Occupy is just a bunch of puppet waving hippies with ipads next to a generic homeless encampment.

    I think Occupy is a really good idea for a long term global movement, but if we can't join ranks with the lesser evilists, the corporate centrists and the disinterested uninvolved and hold the line in November we're going to have much bigger problems. Any litany of Obama's corporate or military industrial security state transgressions has all the real world validity in June 2012 of a teenager screaming "I hate you mommy" in the parking lot of a mall.

    Off topic: I was never under any illusions about Obama and so have only been mildly disappointed.

    If Occupy, by definition, isn't going to be involved with the political process - and, while we need all the help we can get, don't be under the illusion that Occupy has/had more headcount than the tribal frothing at the mouth elderly white teaparty - abandoning the attempt to litigate utopia while urban camping and picking an obvious single message would make whatever media Occupy does generate more ... uh ... relevant.

    The sheer length of the sometimes contradictory laundry list of progressive and occasion conspiracy or idiot left ideas that finally bubbled occasionally out into open during last years media bubble was interesting sociologically but the rest of the US viewed it as, rightfully, incoherent.

    "we are the 99%" doesn't work when we're obviously not representing 99% of the people. There needs to be a real slogan.

    "Every man a king" scared the power brokers.
    "Break up the banks!" might have mass appeal but if 90 people in a park can also insist on "Free Mumia" then the whole movement is stuck in the bud.

    That John Lewis wasn't allowed to speak at the camp in DC because of one idiot (who could easily have been a giggling Republican) was a disgrace. If Occupy isn't just going to be a high school civics class exercise combined with a somewhat faithful recreation of an early 90s Grateful Dead tour parking lot (with iPads and iPhones) then actually fight Wall St. Don't try to litigate, define and demand utopia with camping trips and temper tantrums.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:15:19 AM PDT

    •  it got nothing to do with slogans (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jgnyc

      slogans alone don't create a successful revolution.  Though symbols are an important part of any successful revolution.

      It all comes down to do you really think that a revolution is needed and do you believe in the goals of those rebelling.

      Many people still don't believe in revolutions. They think the electoral system works.  It's becoming harder and harder to believe that given that billions of dollars is influencing elections.

      Yes of course there will be an election in November.  Yes of course I am voting for Obama and am already helping his campaign on the ground.  But I have grave in the future of our democracy.  The walker recall was just the opening episode of what I think is going to become a common theme - elections bought by the wealthy.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:53:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "revolution" is a pretty big word (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, gramofsam1

        Slogans matter because they are what the rest of the world - read: the target audience - hears. "We are the 99%", while it caught the ear of the own tail chasing group think mass media for a moment, doesn't ring true at all and never did. It's pretentious.

        "Revolution", as a concept, in this country is either ridiculous or very scary, mostly the former. Even the Tea Party, and they actually waved automatic rifles around, just looked like silly day trippers. A couple hundred hairys and yuppies and single issue utopian activists with guitars isn't a revolution, it's barely a demonstration even if they (we) camp out in a park for a couple of weeks.

        Your grave fears are justified. My only issue with your post was Wi being the "opening episode". Money has been how elections have worked in this country for a while. Obama raised as much money as Hillary on Wall St during their primary battle (not sure of exact numbers). If, in the future, money can buy every election we're doomed. But ... there's ample evidence that all Walker's money did was maximize the turnout of his base, that he outspent by around 3X once all PACs are taken into account, and that the voters weren't sold on the recall.

        I'm of the belief that society as a whole has to start reorganizing ourself from the ground up for ecological reasons. The culture and problems have far outrun the political systems in place and many of the problems are actually too big for national government, though having the bad guys in charge of the national government could make things significantly worse.

        But the old systems we defend - New Deal, Great Society, need to be improved more because they need to be improved but also to protect them from the con men and racist tribalists of the right wing.

        Kudos for working for Obama. We're all pulling for him. I'm not going to as if he has any problems in deep blue / left wing Manhattan it's long since over. I'll pick a House race and either carpool into upstate or just donate meager funds.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:08:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Whose truth? (0+ / 0-)

      Your concern trolling and disdain for OWS is duly noted.

      Not sure what kind of constructive contribution it is making to the discussion about the relationship between OWS and the Democratic party however.

      Do you think calling potential allies names and pissing on their agenda is a good way to broaden the Democratic coalition?

      I suspect Democrats like you have psychologically already given up and moved on to the blame game.

      •  if you think I'm concern trolling step off (0+ / 0-)

        someone got their feelings hurt huh. Didn't get your utopian revolution or your pony yet? For instance, where in the above post to I call "potential allies" names? I'll be waiting ...

        Why don't you respond to the substance of my post? The slogan "we are the 99%" is pretentious, presumptuous and counter productive. I've gone into some detail in other threads about why I think that (note my location from my user name).

        If pointing this out is concern trolling to you you need to research some better, non-standard insults. But I've been around the left since Vietnam and on the net before CERN and I know you left wing purity trolls don't change your mind or think about the arguments so your knee jerk response is noted and that's all I could glean.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:59:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I'm shattered (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't address the "substance" of your post because there wasn't any. Obviously I can't speak to what you may or may not have posted in other threads.

          You continue to hurl petty insults and claim some sort of authority because your user name implies you're from NYC -a distinction you share with only about 8 million other people, including most of the NY OWS protesters- and because you're old enough to have lived through the Vietnam era and were early on the net (hey, my first computer was a Sinclair ZX-81 - but what do I know).

          The problem here is that you don't want to have a discussion, you just want to talk down to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.

          •  what's the "insult" in my post? (0+ / 0-)

            I note you didn't address a thing I wrote (perhaps because you didn't read it?). You don't specifically point to what I wrote as an "insult" - that I'm "hurling" - because you can't without addressing the ideas that are there. You called me a concern troll without being able to actually quote any piece of what I wrote. You're blinded by attitude.

            I think Maher's point was very valid. The idea that Occupy could elect a bunch of lefty psychos who would then hold hostages in the House is very appealing, if entirely unlikely for demographic reasons. It would certainly be a plus from here on out - imagine for a moment taking some House seats in 2014.

            And touchy purity troll lefties (there, insulting enough for you) have damaged the left of center in the past and are now entirely marginalized by the Balkanized political system (not the money, on that I disagree, but that's a different thread).

            And, yeah, I'm from New York. I joined <1000 people in a park claiming to be the "99%" while a block away far larger crowds went about their daily business.

            You want a discussion? Address my points. But you don't you're just another hurt feelings blog troll.

            If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

            by jgnyc on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:06:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Maher threw a perfect game there (6+ / 0-)

    The energy that created OWS last year will with good fortune transform into something more direct and powerful. The "Occupy" part of OWS was a great attention-getter. But now the attention has been got.

    How about "Occupy your local town or county Democratic Party organization"?

    I joined my local Party last year. Since then I have met and an recognized by such familiar WI names as Bob Wirch, Peter Barca, and Rob Zerban. If I was in better financial shape, I could have been a county delegate to the WI Democratic Party state convention.

    My point is, if the millions who participate in OWS join their local party organizations, they can run for local Party office and set local Party policy. Candidate selction can be influenced. OWS can try to steer the Democratic Party directly instead of trying to influence it from the outside.

  •  Look at Ron Paul by comparison (8+ / 0-)

    He isn't funded by the Kochs or Rove, but he manages to raise a ton of money online, and he has a huge Internet footprint of supporters, so there goes the excuse that Occupy doesn't have corporate $ or media coverage.

    •  Bingo! (6+ / 0-)

      That's what I've been trying to tell these people, but they'd rather whine about no rich people cutting them checks than get organized.

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:25:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  as a leaderless movement I doubt you (2+ / 0-)

      can raise lots of money.  I really don't get this pseudo debate.  Are you all really hoping that OWS goes out and campaigns for Obama?  As someone who has campaigned for Obama, I can tell you that I wouldn't expend any effort trying to bring OWS people in.  They have given up on our system.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:14:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that's probably right (0+ / 0-)

        We were hoping that Occupy would be a progressive movement, but it's really an anarchist movement.

      •  Jesus, noofsh - stop talking about Obama (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ddn

        and how OWS needs megatons of money and start working on making OWS more than just a drum circle despite the money.  You're using the money aspect as a crutch. Make the phrase "people power" actually mean something.

        Of course, that does mean that you'll have to try to connect with those Americans who don't agree with OWS. No, I'm not talking about "the 1%." I mean, other Americans.

  •  I fail to see why this has to be an either/or (11+ / 0-)

    proposition.

    There are people who like to participate in elections and politics; those who are progressives should do that and try to get the most progressive candidates possible into office.

    And there are those who can't stand it these processes. They like to march and rally. They like to defend homes from eviction.  They like to disrupt stockholder meetings of Big Banks and Big Oil.

    The idea that everyone has to conform to one or the other means of effecting change seems silly.  Ultimately there should be synergy between the two types of efforts; instead each seems to be holding the other in contempt.

    •  Typo. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      "And there are those who can't stand to participate in these processes."

    •  If it weren't such a hot button term (4+ / 0-)

      One might call this "Diversity of Tactics."

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:18:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Very good point. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrFrost, gramofsam1

      Some do one of another; some do both.

      OWS is not a mass-based movement of the Dem Party.  

      Thery are two different things.  

      Maher misses the point because he does not understand what OWS is.  

      It will never be a mass-based adjunct of the Dem Party.

      That said, I am not optimistic about what OWS can or will accomplish going forward.  Time will tell.

      Maher is correct in the ened for a mass-based political movement aligned with Democrats, but he is wrong to look at OWS.  

      The reason some hold the other in contempt, in my view, is that it is a battle among losers.  OWs shows no indication of actually impacting real change; nore does the Democcratic Party.  Gross inequality is here for the forseeable future.  

      But it is far easier to fight eaxch other than to fight the 1%.  The story of the left in America.

      Pick a team, fight it out, all the while the bosses pick your pocket.

      Feeling cynical today.

      I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

      by TomP on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:15:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bill Maher (7+ / 0-)

    ...can go to a general assembly whereever he happens to be and present this opinion to the assembly.

    Just because he's Bill Maher doesn't privilege his opinion.

    Outside of participation in general assemblies, opinions about the Occupy movement are just concern trolling.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:30:30 AM PDT

  •  Wrong Comparison (12+ / 0-)

    First: the Tea Party was "successful" because their message is the exact message that the 1% and the repub leaders want disseminated. They were perfect carriers of the divide and conquer strategy. The MSM treated them with respect from the beginning but tried desperately to paint OWS as anything but worthy of respect. Any anti-1% effort faces hurdles that were magically removed for the Tea Party.

    Second: to try to tell OWS what to do is to completely misread what OWS is about. As OWS would say, "Bill, if you think "x" needs to be done, have at it! Go for it! Take the ball and run with it! But don't sit on the sidelines and tell other people what they should be doing."

    Third: OWS does not want to engage in electoral politics. Those who believe that change will only come via electoral politics should work to amplify, piggyback or otherwise synergize with OWS successes, but recognize that they are engaged in something different. Trying to convince OWS to be something else is a waste of energy.

    I think there needs to be efforts from both within and without. OWS is extremely valuable in moving the Overton Window to the left, and in changing the direction of our discourse. They are experimenting with new ways of looking at things which helps to weaken the stranglehold of conventional wisdom and tried and true failed solutions.

    The task for traditionalists/pragmatists who believe strongly that work must be done from within the system should work to translate OWS principles into practical solutions.

    OWS has had a measure of success so all the arm-chair strategists are looking to OWS to be the vehicle for change. But while they are a vehicle for change they can't be the only one.

  •  Tea Party is a fraud (0+ / 0-)

    and Occupy is a fucking joke.  Camping as protest?  Really?

    Get electoral or go home.  Maher was right.  The website he referenced makes the Occupy crowd look like a fucking laughingstock to most Americans, and in particular, the Americans you need to be on your side to gain electoral advantage.

    Oh, go ahead an troll rate me.  Just know that what I told you is true.

    Obama is at war with radical anti-American terrorists. The radical GOP is at war with American women. Take that and run with it DNC, you inept fucking pikers.

    by GOPGO2H3LL on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:31:16 AM PDT

    •  camping as protest (7+ / 0-)

      is clearly a waste of time.  Occupying space as a means to a non-violent revolution is another matter.  It's an extremely powerful tactic.  That is why the government was so aggressive in tearing it down.  The failure of the tactic was that it lacked numbers.  When your numbers are too small, the police can man handle you and readily disperse the occupation.

      I see no reason to troll rate you.  I just think you analyzed the situation all wrong.

      The tea party are lackies of corporate america.  They are fully funded by corporate america.  They is why they can turn on even the gop and primary them.  corporate america wants the most right people they can get elected.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:10:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your comment about numbers is dead on (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ladyjames

        And really what killed OWS in that respect was the location.  There simply wasn't enough space at Liberty Plaza to hold more people.  If we had managed to get a bigger space to occupy then it would have grown and grown.

        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:19:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, efraker

          If you really want a Tahrir Square then you occupy an area just as large and hold your ground.  You will be attacked by the police. But you must hold your ground anyway.  The police in attacking you should fuel the occupation if you are to succeed.  That did happen to an extent but it still wasn't large enough.

          That's the dynamics in a non-violent revolution as outlined by Gene Sharp.  Of course, occupying space is just one tactic.

          Don't be discouraged by the likes of Bill Maher.  He may mean well but he is really part of the failed system.

          Also, don't forget that a revolution can not go on indefinitely.  Otherwise, you descend into anarchy.  Ultimately, some form of elections and government must emerge but hopefully along more democratic lines.

          "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

          by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:02:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  More complicated than that (3+ / 0-)

          NYC is weird and if you take into the geography and demographics of the city right now, as well as the pressure to survive to even live in the city, it helps explain some things.

          1. Liberty Plaza/Wall Street is not a residential area, not really convenient to get to from residential areas. It's in a part of Manhattan that many people just don't go to unless they work there or are tourists.

          Some of their biggest protests occurred when they ventured to areas where more people go or can get to easily from work, school, or home, like Union Square and Times Square.

          2. NYC is expensive. Even Brooklyn and Queens are expensive until you venture into extremely dangerous areas deep in the boroughs. In this economy, I think a lot of the type of young people who are into activism have made their way to cheaper cities. Notice how large the protests in Oakland, Portland, and Seattle are/were. All of those cities are cheaper to live in and offer the kind of lifestyle that appeals to young, left-leaning folks (not simply socially liberal). Manhattan is very much dominated by big business, megabanks, retail/food chains, everyone is always busy, nature is  3-day weekend adventure for those with enough money to escape.

          Of course there are many socially liberal people in NYC/Brooklyn. I just think most either come with the attitude, or have it hammered into them, that the ways things are in the city the way they're going to be, so you either adapt and work your ass off to earn your way to a decent paying career, or you GTFO. The other option is you have rich parents, which quite a few do (kids of old/new money parents).

  •  Dems have displayed thay want nothing to do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice Olson

    with OWS.  Obviously.

  •  I love Bill Maher (8+ / 0-)

    but this isn't helpful.

    Kinda feels like we're two minutes into the first quarter and have decided to call a time-out to debate whether the game is going to be won by the offense, the defense, or the special teams.

    Some of us are too old and arthritic to sleep in the streets but we still have a day job and can write checks.  Some of us have the passion, energy and health of youth and can man the barricades.  Some of us actually know something about organizing and retail politics.  Why are we at each other throats about OWS?  

    There are more than enough tasks for all of us to be busy doing something.  It's not an either/or proposition, except for people who aren't doing anything and whose only contribution is debating how other people should spend their time.

    I wish that someone who knows a lot more political science or organizational psychology or history than I do could give us a dispassionate analysis of the differences between the Tea Party and OWS.  My guess is that despite the deceptive similarities, they're really two completely different phenomena, just as Republican and Democratic aren't two equally valid sides of the coin.  We're supposed to be the reality-based ones.

  •  Bill Maher is a mega-millionaire who (9+ / 0-)

    firmly believes that he should be allowed to purchase political influence.

    He has no credibility when it comes to how a to change a bankrupt system he supports, benefits from, and strives to maintain.

    "For example, I would support the wholesale annihiliation of an entire country...men, women, children, cats, dogs, whatever... if it is done to directly prevent the exact same from happening here." TooFolkGR

    by JesseCW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:58:32 AM PDT

    •  I missed the part where Bill Maher (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Viola, wsexson, Sychotic1, triv33, ladyjames

      donated a million bucks to Wisconsin Dems.  Do you have the link?

      Occupy's motto is "The only solution is world revolution."  OK... but what about setting our sights a little lower, like taking back Wisconsin?
      I figured since he's spewing this advice, he must have donated a lot of money, right?
      •  Good point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooderservice, ladyjames

        Taking back Wisconsin, btw, wasn't really an "OWS" effort. Some shared tactics -- occupying the statehouse, etc. -- but mostly it was a "traditional" electoral effort.

        Efforts need to be happening from every direction, inside, outside, above, below. There can be a broad range of motivations and a wide variety of expressions. Movements become truly "mass" when synergy starts to occur spontaneously as people begin to sense that they're all converging. And that happens only after a lot of little noticed and mostly unrewarded work occurs first.

        With current conditions I think we should see our Dem leaders as means to staunch bleeding at best -- which is very important. But they cannot be depended on to rock the boat in any serious way unless there is massive pressure. That will not come if everyone's energy is diverted to the election game. If anything, the election is a distraction from the real work. I want Obama re-elected and as many Dems as possible. But I guarantee that once that happens there will still be very little forward movement unless other things start happening too. And nothing else will happen if everyone downs tools after the election is over -- which is what the Dem party always does. They love us during election season and forget about us once the last vote is counted.

    •  Maher isn't really a mega-millionaire (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MJB

      I don't know why you would think that.

      •  What is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, ladyjames

        his net worth?  I don't know how credible this site is but it says his net worth is $23 million.  I'd say that's pretty mega.

        What information are you basing your comment on?

        I think it's likely to be inaccurate -- a low estimate.  This USA Today article talks about how he just bought a minority share in the Mets baseball team for $20 million.

        No joke: Bill Maher buys minority share of Mets

        The stand-up comic and political satirist was at Citi Field on Sunday and revealed that he bought a minority share of the team months ago. Mets senior vice president of marketing and communications David Newman confirmed the deal is done and that Maher is a new limited partner.

        [ ... ]

        The Mets' owners sought to raise cash after they were sued by the trustee seeking to recover money for victims of the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. Hedge fund manager David Einhorn agreed in May 2011 to purchase a minority stake in the team for $200 million, but the Mets said Sept. 1 they were calling off that deal and instead wanted to sell limited partner shares for $20 million each.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:01:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  OWS is grass roots not Astro Turf... (9+ / 0-)

    So yeah, they don't take orders. They especially don't take orders from the likes of the people running the Democratic Party... which is Wall Street!

  •  The Tea Party is not grass roots (5+ / 0-)

    It's just the openly racist arm of the Republican Party, being bankrolled and financed by the same corporations as any other GOP element.

  •  I agree... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas

    ..with Maher.

    Word to OWS:  We get it; the system is fucked.

    And both political parties are cesspools of unabashed corruption & grift.

    Both parties are constantly exploring new ways to fuck over the typical American.  We get that.  That's not a huge revelation.

    But OWS, the time has passed to flaunt your idealism.

    Now is when you have to grow up & confront the system on the system's turf, instead of wasting time drum-circling yourselves into eastern religion ecstasy.

    OWS: Pull your heads out of the clouds & take over the Democratic party.

    Or is the OWS movement too chickenshit to try to take over the Democratic party?

    When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in excess body fat and carrying a misspelled sign.

    by wyvern on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:23:04 AM PDT

  •  I Don't Really Like Maher, But He Has a Point. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, ladyjames

    I don't think he's equating the Tea Baggers and OWS, only providing OWS with an idea to get politically active and run some candidates. It worked for the Tea Baggers. It's a good idea because sitting around banks en masse for months isn't really doing any good.

    Of course, Maher overlooks one serious issue - the Tea Baggers are financed by billionaires and is an astroturf movement. Grass roots movements like OWS have a harder time fundraising and political campaigns cost money.

    Gonna bust my butt to get Democrats elected this Fall.

    by kefauver on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:24:01 AM PDT

    •  That is why it's hard to work within the system (5+ / 0-)

      Right now, the system is rigged against us.  Not only does money buy AD time but it also buys a large organized grassroots GOTV effort.  Let's face the right wingers beat us both at GOTV and AD buys in the Wisconsin recall.  That is how unlimited money subverts the system.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:16:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is hard, but it has to be done (0+ / 0-)

        either that or we take our ball and go home and stay there. Power will only recognize power. We need to start building a base that challenges their base.

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:57:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Go away old, unfunny man. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, joanneleon

    You and you old line liberals have done a lot to get us where we are.  Don't mind us if we don't do what you like.

    “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” - Harriet Tubman

    by Publius2008 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:35:52 AM PDT

    •  Well Maher is doing just fine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Annalize5

      so he probably thinks things are going swimmingly.

      Not surprised that he doesn't get it. I don't think he gets out much, other than to go to places where he is on a stage.  

      He really doesn't get it.  I'm surprised he didn't tell OWS to get a job and take a bath.


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:47:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Absolutley Right On (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, MeToo

    I put forth this argument in a Diary Last October and got slamed pretty heavily in the comments for it.  The slamming was all about the feeling that Occupy should be a movement outside of the two party system in some puritan third way sense of politics.

    I know the Denocrtic Party is not always what we (and Occupy) want it to be, but the reality is that right now its the closests thing we got, and we are not going to get somethin better before this years election.

    That's why Occupy and the Dewmocratic Party need to link up somehow and learn to tolerate each other's shortcomings for the greater good.  The greater good being getting as many of the 1% backing Republicans out of office and getting as many of the 99% backing Democrats in office.

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:41:19 AM PDT

  •  Maher nailed it. I hope OWS takes heed. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, fcvaguy, high uintas

    The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

    by SoCalSal on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:49:06 AM PDT

  •  Because voting has worked so well. (6+ / 0-)

    Wow Maher is cluesless. No more "take over the system from the inside" bullshit for me.  

    •  I think Maher's point is that voting (0+ / 0-)

      has worked so well for the Tea Party.  And it has. They were voted into office, they didn't take it in a coup d'etat.

      They control the House.  Which means that they pretty much control the legislative process.  

  •  Excellent, excellent, excellent. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma

    Maher hits the nail on the head.

    "Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel." ~Sepp Herberger

    by surfbird007 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:31:40 AM PDT

  •  Bill Maher (4+ / 0-)

    is fun to watch, but politically awake he is not.  OWS is a global movement.  The Western world has been attacked and brought down by the corporate/financial neocons.  The Nurses Union is connected globally.  Whatever happens in the US, nothing changes that.  OWS, like the civil rights movement, was under observation by Homeland Security who coordinates with police.  The FBI investigated most of the civil rights leaders and shared that information.  There is no way OWS will be on any financial board like the Tea Party.  While they do not realize it, the Tea Party are the brownshirts for the neocons.  They will disappear as soon as they are no longer useful.  In November we will probably get more of the same with the House obstruction, the Senate shut down for filibusters and the White House helpless under Obama.  Under Romney, like Bush, with ALEC etc they will take down the US fast and big time with their privatizations, tax cuts, wars.  Freedom of speech and OWS movements will be one of the first to go.  Probably it/we will need to go underground.

  •  His basic mistake (3+ / 0-)

    is to assume a close parallel in the social relations between the Tea Party and the Rubes on one hand, and OWS and the Dems on the other.  The Tea Party says what the Rubes always wanted to, but were afraid to.  The Dems want no part of what the social base of OWS wants, and Dems like Mumbles Menino and jean Quan in fact the leaders in unleashing nationwide violent police repression of OWS on the most pettifogging pretexts.    The Rubes WANT TO Be the TeaParty.  The Dems hate everything OWS stands for.  It's not a good analogy.

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

    by ActivistGuy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:37:00 AM PDT

  •  I dont always agree, but he is 100% right (0+ / 0-)

    I loved OWS, but the rhetoric that didn't fly with me is "not getting coopted" being "non partisan" etc etc.

    We live in a country run by politial parties.

    Thank your stars it is only two.

    The framing of power is 100% right.

    We could have 90% of polls behind us, but without power we have nothing.

    We have always had good checks in place, like PCCC, TYT, and many others.

    We need to keep running primaries, and bombing the right wing with good ads and message campaigns.

  •  People here seem to foget one important thing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, ladyjames

    the Tea Party does not hesitate to vote out their Republicans representatives, even when it causes a Democratic win (see Nevada).

    Telling Occupier to go start canvassing for the Dems like Obama who coddle Wall Street is not the correct thing to do. It's not only against the point of the movement, but also is the opposite of what the tea party did to get their power.

  •  The Tea Party has been effective (0+ / 0-)

    The 99% has not. Not really. Having sit ins and being involved in riots and occupying parks really doesn't do much of anything other than giving the opposition ammunition to use against you.

    I loathe the Tea Party and everything they stand for, but one cannot say they have been ineffective.

    O great creator of being grant us one more hour to perform our art and perfect our lives. ::: Jim Morrison :::

    by Kevanlove on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:21:51 PM PDT

  •  Boy did the folks who said this get shit right (0+ / 0-)

    here at the big orange last year get harrassed  for saying what is patently obvious.

    So fucking obvious.

  •  Bill Maher is part of the 1% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    efraker, ladyjames

    He's good sometimes but it is not surprising to see him spouting off about OWS in the same demeaning way that the bankers and other elites do.

    Looks like he bought a minority share in the Mets for a cool $20 million recently.

    Bill Maher Now Owns Share of the Mets

    Maher, 56, whose libertarianism and atheistic views are elements of his comedy, would not say whether he had bought a full $20 million share or chipped in with others to buy one.

    Whatever the size of his investment, he is the most celebrated person — at least the only one with a TV show — known to have become a new partner in the team with the Wilpon family, who raised $240 million from selling pieces of the team.

    Until now, the most famous outsider known to have bought a share of the team was the hedge-fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen.


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:41:43 PM PDT

  •  I'm not a member of any organized political party, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    efraker

    I'm a Democrat.

                            Will Rogers

  •  Maher is an Entertainer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dumbo, Nisi Prius, ladyjames

    fucksake, and now the concern trolls,
    diary police and cheerleaders are out in force.

    Nice.

    Maher is neither a pundit nor politician.

    In the end, who gives a shit what he says?

    Both parties are beholden to their corporate sponsors. The Democratic Party deigns to throw us a few bones from the table on which to gnaw and squabble over, but it's just kabuki.

    by ozsea1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:49:56 PM PDT

  •  "I'm wondering why no bankers have been shot" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladyjames

    is something else Bill Maher quipped. Shall we all follow him down that path?

    I'm a great fan of Bill Maher's and I often agree with him, but not always

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:54:35 PM PDT

  •  Great diary, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

    "Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing." - Thomas Paine

    by blueoregon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:12:47 PM PDT

  •  Let's face it: Occupy mostly isn't abt change now (0+ / 0-)

    The original Occupy Wall Street was about change. It was a legitimate protest movement focused on the actual target of complaint, and it was effective in changing the public conversation.

    Elsewhere? Not so much.

    I live in a solidly liberal area. We have permanent "Occupy" encampments in several of our local towns. They're made up mostly of young kids who cannot articulate any but the most general and vague political agenda. The cities they're set up in are about as left-wing as you can get, and certainly can't get any more so by having a tent city downtown. EVERYONE completely ignores these people, and looks forward to when they will (inevitably) fade away.

    Their political impact is...nil. These "protests" are recreational campouts. That's all. Something fun for people to do that lets them feel as though they are participating in the politics of the world.

    Many "Occupiers" are protesting just to protest, because it feels good to break rules, gain attention, and feel as though you're Fighting the Man. When I was a kid in my 20s, I enjoyed that sort of thing myself. Until I understood that it was political masturbation, not activism.

    The Occupy strategy was a MOMENT, and that moment is over. Maher is correct, but what he recommends will not happen, because doing as he suggests is hard, thankless work, and it requires that you focus in on a specific set of political goals.

    Occupiers are not able to do that. They're about everything from legalizing marijuana to banning corporations.

    I'm very glad that OWS happened. I'm glad it seized the imagination of the country. But "Occupation" is now a liability and not an asset to t