Skip to main content

Occupy Day 28
From the streets ... (David Shankbone)
To the election ...
Democrats are united in message and policy behind a narrative that holds Republicans accountable for the decline of the middle class, blaming them for rubber-stamping the agenda of a moneyed elite that is abusing the levers of power to rig the game in their favor. And Mitt Romney is their poster child for that phenomenon. [...] “The biggest thing that changed was there was a major shift in the overall environment when it comes to the tax debate,” the Democratic aide said, crediting the Occupy Wall Street movement for helping make the wealth disparity a national issue. “People increasingly think the system is rigged to benefit those at the top.” - TPM
Last fall, I posited that:
The Occupy Movement is quickly becoming an essential component of the progressive Village. But it takes more than a grassroots movement. It takes electoral activism and, yes, responsive politicians. For years, the blogs, like Daily Kos, have provided electoral activism. The pols have been a bit slow on the response, to say the least. Maybe what they needed to see was a grassroots movement. Enter the Occupy Movement. The makings of a functional progressive village seems to be, possibly, in our future.

The future appears to be now. See President Obama in a campaign appearance in Ohio last week:


But it started earlier. Remember the president's words in his State of the Union address this past January?

[My grandfather's generation] understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share -- the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement. The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

—President Obama, 2012 State of the Union Address

Sounds like this Democratic president (audio here):


But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens—a substantial part of its whole population—who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.

I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.

I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.

I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.

I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

But it is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hope—because the nation, seeing and understanding the injustice in it, proposes to paint it out. We are determined to make every American citizen the subject of his country’s interest and concern; and we will never regard any faithful law-abiding group within our borders as superfluous. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. [Emphasis supplied.]

This is why we are Democrats. Our politicians and statesmen now appear to be fully comfortable in reanimating these basic Democratic values.

Occupy helped make that happen.

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

  •  It is amazing (50+ / 0-)

    because for a long time, people scratched their heads asking why working class Americans would consistently vote against their interests. The OWS movement kind of clearly framed it in a non-violent, Ghandi protest kind of way. And lo and behold, with a shameless plutocrat at the top of the Republican ticket, it is being driven home.

    •  Where was the choice to vote for their interests? (32+ / 0-)

      It's been a long time since the Democratic party presented a clear choice for the interests of the working class.  In the absence of that traditional New Deal orientation, voters have been susceptible to divide-and-conquer tactics of the plutocrats.  The Democratic party in recent decades has been complicit with this plutocratic agenda.  Nobody talked in serious terms about rebuilding the middle class; reversing income inequality; bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country; rebuilding energy independence with renewable resources.  

      Democrats are starting to take baby steps back toward this traditional Rooseveltian agenda, but they've got a long way to go.  If they truly embrace an economic populist agenda and demonstrate their bona fides by governing according to it, I'm very confident that a lot fewer voters would vote against their interest.  Once they see a party working for their interest, that is.

      For the love of money is the root of all evil; and while some have coveted after it, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)

      by Dallasdoc on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:27:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How did Alan Grayson do in his last election? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma, Candide08, AoT

        Talking generically about "the Democratic Party," as if the variety of cats in that herd are all alike, serves only to obscure the truth.

        It would very pretty to think that the Alan Graysons of the world would gain the support of white working class people in Kansas, but it just isn't true.  Candidates like him don't do any better than more business-oriented Democrats, and usually do worse, in those areas.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:32:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Respectfully disagree. (17+ / 0-)

          The popular understanding of rising disparities of wealth and opportunity simply hasn't been there. When people have been fed lies and myths for so long, lies that play on their fears and prejudices, that induce them to place the blame on those who are on their side and share their plight, then the task for the occasional Alan Grayson can be overwhelming.

          But now the Overton Window through which the average voter views the world may be shifting -- thanks to Occupy.

          Great diary, Armando. Thank you!

          "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

          by flitedocnm on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:20:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If this has changed since 2010, that's great. (0+ / 0-)

            Maybe the Occupy message has seeped in even more than I'm giving it credit for, and we really will see a shift in the voting patterns of white working class white Kansans or whatever towards progressive candidates.  We'll see this November.

            But even if that does happen, it would represent a significant shift from the three preceding decades.  The demand for progressive candidates and the support for progressive economic ideas just hasn't been there, and Democrats who tried to run on those ideas did not meet with much success.  

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:27:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  He fell victim (8+ / 0-)

          to the "We have a Black President" backlash.

          Grayson lost to Webster because Obama promised change and failed to deliver in the first 2 years of being elected.

          Of course that was an unreasonable expectation, but when amplified under the GOP's coordinated "We can't afford it" message about the Stimulus and government in general, it became the shell gamed referendum of the mid terms.

          They shouted and not only was their base was motivated to come out to the polls, but they tricked voters not traditionally Republican to vote against their interests.

          My 90 year old grandmother - a life-long Rooseveltian Democrat, who has an autographed pitcure of JFK hanging in her house, was bad mouthing Obama.  My father and I had to sit her down and talk to her about what it still means to be a Democrat and what the fight is still all about.  We reminded her about how the GOP's ultimate goal is to take away social security and medicare, and any other social program that helps the middle class.  We talked about how my deceased grandfather was a member of the teamsters and how that union helped her retire to the waterfront Florida home she enjoys - and how without Democrats not only would she not have the dignified retirement she has earned, but whether or not she would still be with us would be in question.  

          The older folks in this country have forgotton the struggle and what FDR's leadership afforded them.  Occupy has reminded them - at least some of them - what this is about.  

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

          This is an argument that dates back to Voltaire to Hobbs, Locke and Rousseau and beyond.  It is both a moral and an economic argument.  We are to be judged of societal successes by the lowest common standard of living present in society.  Do we possess the intelligence and the political will to recognize and prevent the wealthiest from tranforming the rest of society into a class of poor and exploiting said poor?  That is the persistent question society must ask itself.  

          The Democrats knew 90 years ago exactly what causes cascading economic failure.  When the haves absord too much of the rewards of production and prosperity, society lacks the aggregate demand to support the system.  Prosperity is shared through the social programs that supports the middle class and gives them the opportunity to ascend economically by way of their sweat-equity contribution to society.

          IMO, if Alan Grayson wants to take back his seat, he needs to talk about the middle class ROI on sweat-equity in the context of these tried and true Democratic principles.  Pointing out the absurd hypocrisies of the GOP is important, but it is not the complete picture and will only get him so far.

          Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

          by meatballs on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:33:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Grayson also got hammered by outside money (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thomask, flitedocnm, Smoh, rhonan, wsexson

            He was targeted pretty heavily IIRC.

            "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

            by xaxnar on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:58:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If a progressive candidates fall victim to a... (0+ / 0-)

            "We have a black President" backlash, then just how powerful is this demand for progressive candidates supposed to be among those voters?  If it can get swamped by a racial backlash that doesn't even have anything to do with the Congressional race in question, we're not talking about a terribly powerful electoral force.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:31:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Vote suppression and disenfranchisment (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              meatballs, rhonan

              also play a huge role.  We need to remember that and shout it out every chance we get.  Overwhelmingly vote suppression and disenfranchisement negatively affect Democrats and even more so progressive democrats.

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

              by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:42:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Excuse-making. That's not why 2010 happened. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                meatballs, Illinibeatle

                And it's not why white working-class voters have been voting Republican for 30 years.

                Vote suppression and disenfranchisement are, indeed, big issues, but they aren't really relevant here.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:46:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not an excuse (0+ / 0-)

                  It's one of the reasons that progressives are under represented.  It's a fact.  Working class whites have been voting republican for quite a while, but I was talking about electing progressives, even if it's without working class whites.

                  Vote suppression and disenfranchisement are, indeed, big issues, but they aren't really relevant here.
                  Vote suppression and disenfranchisement lost Gore the election in 2000.  A majority of the voters that were purged in Florida would have voted Dem.  That's a simple truth.  

                  2010 happened for a lot of reasons, Vote suppression and disenfranchisement were part of it.

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

                  by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:07:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  yes but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        judyms9, hooper, Smoh

        there was not a national fiscal crisis, such as 2008,2009, as a back drop. It's kind of difficult to change the tide when things are going relatively well.

    •  Talking about Taxes is not enough (4+ / 0-)

      We also need to talk about income. The mantra is all about "increasing shareholder value". Well, how about increasing employee value? The people who make it possible for there to be any value at all?

      Republicans haven't just been rigging the tax system. They've been rigging the whole economy. We need to bring that into the dialog too. As long as Republicans can keep the economy staggering along while still making out like bandits, as long as they keep unemployment so high, employers will continue to hold the jobs of workers hostage to their extortionate demands for concessions and give backs.

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:57:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since then, due to provocations and provocatuers, (10+ / 0-)

      the government has successfully transformed the image of the Occupy movement into one of our being violent and destructive.  We need to reclaim it.  I happily make my participation in Occupy a main part of my electoral pitch.

      Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 10:44:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am pro Occupy, but we can't blame others (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane, Smoh, WB Reeves

        ...for some of the challenges the movement created for itself. The government cannot stop people from organizing, mobilizing and continuing to agitate. No amount of Super Pac money can keep me from walking my butt out into the streets or voting.

        Occupy should have a large presence right now and throughout the campaign and beyond. I don't see that presence and I am very disappointed. It makes me sick that we aren't out countering this narrative that Paul Ryan has "bold" ideas and is some kind of "thinker". Occupy should be out right now upsetting that narrative.

        Our side needs to get out of the blame game and start accepting responsibility for getting stuff done ourselves. We don't need permission from the 1% or anyone of either party in D.C. to put some serious pressure on all candidates.

        "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

        by sebastianguy99 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:09:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I quite agree. Most of Occupy's failure was (5+ / 0-)

          its own fault.  It made a whole series of crucial strategic mistakes--mostly out of naivete and inexperience, with a big dose of utopian idealism.

          That is of course entirely understandable.  There has been no effective progressive model for anyone to look to---the last effective leftist organizing here happened in the 60's, and the veterans of that movement are now dying off. Me, I grew up during the Reagan years, and we did a lot of effective organizing around Central America issues, South Africa issues, Reaganomics, etc-----but there were far fewer of us, and we mostly disappeared during the Clinton years.  So the younger generation now has been left more or less to its own devices to figure out how to organize effectively. It's not surprising that they turned to the only example in front of them--the Arab Spring movement--and tried to ape it even though those methods were not suitable for the circumstances here (this isn't Egypt, and indeed the Arab Spring didn't even work in Egypt).

          There were a few of us in Occupy who were trying to pass on our own experiences in organizing, but too many of us were shut down and shut out by the utopian idea of "no leaders !!!!"  As a result, the organizational model of Occupy was a colossal failure.

          Time to learn our lessons from that, and carry on.

          •  Yes, evolution, not cessation! n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

            by sebastianguy99 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:13:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  sadly, I think Occupy as an organization is dead (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc

              But its spirit will live on. All of the reasons why Occupy appeared, are still there--none of them have gone away. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in. It's just a matter of time until the movement appears again, in whatever form---and whether it's "Occupy" or not, the leadership of that movement will come out of Occupy.

              Our job now is to keep the experienced core together, to pore over our mistakes and learn from them, and to be ready for the next show whenever and wherever it starts.

        •  My experience is mostly with Occupy Orange County (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Smoh, Dallasdoc, WB Reeves, CT Hank, wsexson

          and visitors from Occupy LA (and to some extent Long Beach and San Diego.)  People in Occupy are criticizing the hell out of Paul Ryan -- you should see my Facebook page -- but of course we don't have a big megaphone to do so.

          I find, though, that the prevalent Occupy philosophy is not a Democratic one, but some mixture of Jill Stein Green and Ron Paul Gold.  They damn Obama because of NDAA and drones and Geithner and so on -- many of the same things that he gets flamed for here -- but the determination to avoid complicity by voting for a "lesser evil" is if anything greater within the movement than here.

          I do my part to counter that, just as I do my part to impart the lessons I learned from anti-draft-registration, anti-nuclear, and CISPES and anti-apartheid style struggles from the '80s (along with others before and since) -- but it's a pretty lonely enterprise.  Progressives and liberals, Democrats and moderates, want nothing to do with the political fringe -- and when you're talking these days about people willing to stand out there and get banged on by the cops, you're pretty much talking about the fringe (as well as some of the more admirable unionists.)

          So, if I may speak to Democrats in terms they will understand: "Ask not what Occupy will do for you; ask what you can do for Occupy."  That includes joining, getting your hands dirty, changing it where necessary, and helping to lead.

          Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:39:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's a really important point here (5+ / 0-)
            Progressives and liberals, Democrats and moderates, want nothing to do with the political fringe -- and when you're talking these days about people willing to stand out there and get banged on by the cops, you're pretty much talking about the fringe (as well as some of the more admirable unionists.)
            This right here is so important to note.  The Dems don't want anything to do with anything that could be construed as being vaguely dirty hippieish and it hurts them.  I mean, medical marijuana, and decriminalization in general, would be a great issue for the Dems, even on a national level, but they just refuse to even touch it because it's just a bunch of hippies.

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

            by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:57:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  sadly, some of the smaller Occupy remnants have (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane

            already been captured by the Ron Paul nutters.  I suppose that was inevitable once branches began shrinking down to the size where a relative handful of people could come in and take over. The Paulites may be a tiny lunatic groupuscule, but they are very well-disciplined and quite good at taking over other organizations--kinda like the RCP and PLP used to be back in the old days.

            Mostly, though, Occupy seems to have just faded away.  In the very large cities like DC, NY and Oakland, there are still a few hundred active people (making them about the same size as any other typical lefty community group). In most of the mid-sized cities I've talked to people in, it's dwindled to a few dozen people.  Here in Florida, Tampa has about 15 people, St Pete has around a dozen.

            •  We probably have 50-100 reasonably active people (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc, hyperstation

              here in OC (between Occupy OC and Occupy Santa Ana) meaning ones that we'd have a reasonable shot at getting out to an event, such as a protest of a Romney fundraising rally or Anaheim police brutality.  (If you're on Facebook and would like to link to some pages, Lenny, drop me a line and let me know; your bona fides are beyond question.)  We don't regularly have weekly GA's anymore, usually it's 1-2 times per month, but we're in extensive daily contact online and we plan things.

              What Occupy has really done here is to give us a head start.  Even among people who have dropped out or burned out, we now know who each other are and what each other can do -- we're several steps ahead of where we'd be if we were starting from square one.  We can put together a reasonable rally, ideally one with a touch of humor, in a day.

              We're less popular than we were last fall because of false charges that we're involved in window-breaking and the like.  We get bogged down in silliness like making the fight over the ability to chalk on public sidewalks a major focus.  But for all that, we have a diverse activist community that was either non-existent or diffuse before.  We don't feel dead!

              Pro-Occupy Democratic Candidate for California State Senate, District 29 & Occupy OC Civic Liaison.

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinsky

              by Seneca Doane on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:31:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ah, well, we can get around 35-40 people to events (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Seneca Doane, Dallasdoc

                But there are only around a dozen people still actively going to meetings and GAs.

                Of course, I'm in St Pete FL, which is not exactly the most progressive area in the most progressive state (we have a creationist mayor for crissakes). If we took every progressive in the entire Tampa Bay area we probably could not fill up a movie theater. ;)

                But for our tiny size we've been very active and have had a number of successful actions.

          •  Liberal reform and the political fringe (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane

            You write, "Progressives and liberals, Democrats and moderates, want nothing to do with the political fringe."

            And yet--and I get that you understand this but many here at Daily Kos do not--when has there ever been effective liberal change made without a vociferous Left fringe agitating for even more extreme measures? Socialists and anarchists during the Progressive era. Communists and Share the Wealthers during the New Deal. The New Left and black radicals during the 1960's, as well as the determinedly nonviolent yet confrontational activists of the civil rights movement.

  •  can I add an Amen? (27+ / 0-)
    This is why we are Democrats. Our politicians and statesmen now appear to be fully comfortable in reanimating these basic Democratic values.
    and can I add, to those who are not, we will not forget, and we will come for you.
    •  A-freaking-men! n/t (9+ / 0-)

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

      by koosah on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:09:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wish I thought that were true (32+ / 0-)

      At this point I hear some populist campaign rhetoric from Democrats, but not a lot of positive agenda to push those values forward.  Democrats are still on the defensive in policy terms, and general statements of concern for the middle class -- while welcome -- don't fill in the policy blanks of what Democrats would do in a 113th Congress if they're given power.  

      I'd like to see a lot more derision and castigation of Republicans as tools of the wealthy.  Maybe Paul Ryan's presence on the ticket will produce those attacks from Dems.  The trickle-down zombie lie needs to be directly confronted and beaten down, and no better opportunity will ever present itself to Democrats than this election.  

      Keynesian stimulus should be championed with a big infrastructure program.  Taxes on the wealthy should be explicitly advocated by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, as well as closing many loopholes the Romneys and Ryans use to pay risibly small tax rates.  Obama should be explicit too about not cutting benefits to individuals in Medicare; in not cutting Social Security in the future; and in expanding health care access in his second term beyond what the ACA does.

      We need a positive vision from Democrats as well as a hard, relentless attack on the plutocratic Republican agenda.  That's when I'll believe our politicians are fully comfortable as traditional Democrats.

      For the love of money is the root of all evil; and while some have coveted after it, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)

      by Dallasdoc on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:20:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Amen to YOU, sir (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jim0121, joanneleon

        "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

        by DaddyO on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:25:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, an Amen to that as well. (5+ / 0-)

        I have the feeling that all we'll see is campaign rhetoric. It would be great to see a real Democratic platform with candidates committed to it.

        ",,, the Political whorehouse that is Fox News." Keith Olbermann

        by irate on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:25:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I feel like that portion of the needed (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laurnj, judyms9, SoCalSal, Dallasdoc

        change is building.  It takes a brain trust to boil down the needs of the people into distilled messages that move us in those directions.  I don't know if many people who are part of the occupy movement also make those snazzy facebook placards.  Whoever is designing many of those messages, the Liberals I know pick through them and pass around the ones that speak in the most concise and undeniable terms, and then those are shared far and wide.  Even that is changing the debate, it carries me to the next point that needs addressed on the journey.  Saves me days and days of processing arguments and issues alone.

        I am only one person, I can only study so many important issues right now and I can only argue for so many solutions that work.  I need everyone else's help and leadership getting to a healthy America and I think awareness of the bullshit bill of goods we were sold is building.

      •  once again (5+ / 0-)

        you speak for me Dallasdoc.

        And what about some clear statements on filibuster reform from top Dems.

        Do we have any Democratic Senators willing to speak out positively about progressive moves we should make?

        Hidden is he. Mighty is he. His time returns. Hold, wait, be still

        by GideonAB on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:52:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. Without Democratic Senators willIng (5+ / 0-)

          To speak out about filibuster reform, and demand it for the next congress, no one will believe whatever populist rhetoric candidates spout.  Politicians of both parties use the filibuster to hide their unwillingness to follow through on what they say.  Obama essentially did the same.  We all remember the terrific populist speaking candidate of 2008.  Hope and change.  But when the time came to follow through he was backed down by a filibustering senate, and left saying that there weren't enough vote for the policies he espoused.  And there never will be, as long as we have to get 60 votes for everything.  The filibuster, and hence minority rule in the Senate, is only allowed to exist by the majority party in the senate.  Next time McConnell filibusters some necessary piece of democratic legislation, remember that you have every member of the Democratic majority to blame for yertles success.

      •  truer words (8+ / 0-)

        were never before posted.

        The trickle-down zombie lie needs to be directly confronted and beaten down, and no better opportunity will ever present itself to Democrats than this election.
        I would add, that this might be our (the Democrats) last chance to destroy this lie before our middle class is completely lost and we become a third world nation populated by a few super rich and a vast under class.

        "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

        by gulfgal98 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:55:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  exactly. the dems haven't been progressive since (9+ / 0-)

        the 70's, and show no interest at all in being progressive now.   They are not on our side, and won't be for the foreseeable future.

        What we have is a lunatic rightwing party, and a moderate center-right party.  NO ONE represents us. No one.

        That is precisely why Occupy had to take to the streets.

        •  and why they need to run candidates. I know the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xaxnar, Odysseus

          whole philosophy is pure democracy with no leaders, but doesn't it make sense to infiltrate Washington just like the Teabaggers did with that raft of freshman? Wouldn't that be some manner of beginning?

          If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

          by livjack on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:03:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's not a matter of ideology, it's a matter of (6+ / 0-)

            effectiveness.

            Until elections cease to be dominated by money (and neither party has taken a single step towards that), then elections are simply not an effective pathway to social change, no matter how many candidates we run for whatever party.

            The only effective pathway for social change left to us is outside the electoral system.

            If that changes later, then I'm all for utilizing whatever opportunities we have to run and elect our own candidates.  But that opportunity simply is not there for us now.

            •  one party alone (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SoCalSal

              is not able to make elections free from the influence of money - that would not work.

              Citiznes United has to be done away with - an Amendment anyone? - and real campaign finance laws put in place, with policing.

              Part of the problem is that everyone knows when the elections will be.... if the campaign may start at any time and only lasts perhaps  four weeks, you're better off - or rather we are, here in the UK.

              Is there any way you can shorten the process - I don't see it, short of major Amendments which are just not going to happen.

              •  I quite agree, one party alone can't do it (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GideonAB, Nada Lemming, AoT, wsexson

                Our problem is that NEITHER party wants to do it.  BOTH parties get their money from the same people, and NEITHER of them wants to end the gravy train.

                If we want money out of politics, we cannot look to either party to do that, or even to support our efforts to do it.

                We will have to do that on our own, independent of both parties.

                That is the lesson that Occupy taught us.

                •  Democrats might act (0+ / 0-)

                  if pushed.

                  Perhaps we need a litmus test for candidates we support.

                  If a candidate wants the backing of the kos community, they must pledge to speak out about the affect of money on the process, even if other Democrats object.

                  How I miss the fire of Weiner

                  Hidden is he. Mighty is he. His time returns. Hold, wait, be still

                  by GideonAB on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 10:41:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  teabaggers had the support of big money (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, wsexson

            and the party establishment. occupy would be facing a brutal headwind in a democratic primary, in a system rigged to respond to money.

            organizing outside the party worked better at moving the party, IMO.

      •  Too cynical. Leaves no room for positive change, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SoCalSal

        imo, just "I'll never believe them" complacency.

        Cynicism is the safe position and often turns out to be self-reinforcingly accurate, in the rear-view mirror.  But the future is for those who make it.

        Occupy is a great example of this.  Who would've thought that the conversation about inequality could change so quickly?  What did this? Activism, outrage, courage, and optimism...the exact opposite of cynicism.

        Great diary, Armando!

  •  FDR (28+ / 0-)
    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
    Amen!

    This, coming for a very non-religious individual. Me.

    Best-selling true crime author Corey Mitchell. Please, buy my books!

    by liquidman on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:08:42 AM PDT

    •  There are lefty Christian undertones in that (0+ / 0-)

      quotation, but then the Democratic Christ is a different guy from the GOP Christ, the one in the Ferragamos, not to be confused with the one in the handmade sandals.

      Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

      by judyms9 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:01:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and with dark skin and curly hair. (0+ / 0-)

        (I'm Jewish: Jews whose roots are in the middle east don't look anything like the Jesus most of us grew up seeing).

        We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

        by Tamar on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:25:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good post. (24+ / 0-)

    Occupy helped make it happen.  Another factor was the failure of the "Grand Bargain" and Obama's final realization that compromise was impossile.  After the debt crisis, he appeared to realize that his reelection depended on economic populism and began more clas-based rhetoric.  In some ways, Occupy and that rhetorical switch helped change the political climate.  Occupy 's domination of the news and the popular support for a critique of economic inequality in general (even if not supporting the anarchistic nature of Occupy)  made a big difference.

    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren Wing of the Democratic Party!

    by TomP on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:10:26 AM PDT

    •  Obama made the grand bargain fail. (2+ / 0-)

      He demanded a trillion dollars in tax hikes, making a non-negotiable demand in a discussion with the Republicans in 2011.  Quick, if there was one poison pill you could insist upon to make sure the Republicans would never take your offer, what would it be?

      And then, when it looked like there was a chance Boehner might actually accede, Obama asked for another $400 billion in tax hikes, just to make sure it stayed dead.

      The realization that there were no deals to be made with the Tea Party Republicans came well before July of 2011.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:36:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So your position is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raboof, CT Hank

        it was 11 dimensional chess, and not what he wanted at all.  

        How do you explain the recent quote that he doesn't get enough credit from the media for being willing to bargain away social security and Medicare?  

        ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

        by Nada Lemming on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:47:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Naw, it's not even that complicated. (0+ / 0-)

          This is just Politics 101: how to kill something you can't be seen trying to kill.  Inserting a poison pill is more "the oldest trick in the book" than "11-dimensional chess."  His execution of the maneuver was very well done, but ultimately, it was a very straightforward, common maneuver.

          And I explain the quote the same way I just explained the kabuki in the first place: he wants to be seen as Mr. Reasonable in contrast to the Republicans, and he sells himself as such to the media when he can do so in a consequence-free manner.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:52:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not a chance (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Illinibeatle

            That's just wishful thinking that ignores all the evidence in front of your face.

            Obama surrounds himself with people who have long records of wanting to put the shiv to grandma. He larded his deficit commission with those picks. Rumors are that he wants to replace the departing whore for the bankers Geithner with Erskine Bowles, the better to slit grandma's throat.

            The Grand Bargain failed because the Republican extremists pushed beyond what even Obama was willing to give up. (Not that he was willing to give up anything personally; he's set for life.)

            Don't forget: Clinton was on this trajectory himself until the Lewinsky scandal derailed it. There is a powerful and influential cohort of Democrats who have prostituted themselves to Big Bank money and who have swallowed whole the Very Serious Wisdom of inside-the-Beltway cocktail parties. None of these people need count on Social Security or Medicare for a secure retirement and can't relate to those who do need to count on those programs.

            •  All of what evidence? (0+ / 0-)

              You mean like cuts that never happened, and never made it into any proposal put forward to Congress?

              You mean like how Obama specifically excluded Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare benefits from the automatic cuts?  That sort of evidence?

              You mean like the complete absence of any deficit commission recommendations about entitlements in any of his policies?

              Oh, no, you don't mean any of that.  You mean a rumor about a future appointment that might or might not happen.

              Color me unimpressed by your "evidence."

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Tue Aug 14, 2012 at 12:28:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I'll say it: Occupy has been a huge (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burnt out, DaddyO, sebastianguy99

    disappointment.  Changed the rhetoric?  Yes, and kudos to them for that.

    But that's it?

    In contrast, look at what the Tea Party is doing (and has done) in actually electing its candidates.

    Do we have a single Occupy candidate anywhere winning anything?

    Nope, and Jon Stewart still gets to make jokes about Occupy being nothing but dirty retro-hippies.

    I hope for better things.

    •  Occupy helped make this possible. I am not (29+ / 0-)

      disappointed.  I am not emotionally attached to Occupy and could care less whether Stewart ridicules the movement.  They made a diiference for the better in a long struggle and I am grateful.

      I'm from the Elizabeth Warren Wing of the Democratic Party!

      by TomP on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:13:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. Who cares if Occupy gets bashed? (11+ / 0-)

        Unlike a political figure running for office, Occupy isn't trying to burnish Occupy's image.

        If news report spends five minutes talking about income inequality, while also making the protesters look like stinky hippies, that is 100% win for Occupy.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:27:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Occupy needs (7+ / 0-)

          to join forces with organized labor (what remains of it).  The anarchist elements in it are resisting this, unfortunately.  But that synthesis would make the difference between rhetorical changes and action.

          Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

          by KibbutzAmiad on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:45:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  pffft. organized labor (what's left of it) isn't (6+ / 0-)

            capable of action.  That's why it's in the boat it's in.  It has been reduced to shoveling money to the Dems and hoping for a pat on the head once in a while (that it never seems to get).

            •  That is why we need to join forces (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joe from Lowell, AoT, One Opinion

              Do not knock Labor. They at least show up and work their asses off. We need more organized labor, not less.

              "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

              by sebastianguy99 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:13:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've been a union organizer for many years (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT, George Hier

                Most of the labor movement's troubles were its own fault. They made the conscious decision that their job was to protect "American workers", and to hell with all the others.  It was an open invitation to the corporations to do exactly what they did---ship all the jobs elsewhere.

                If the union movement had remembered what the words "solidarity" and "unity" mean (or at least what the word "whipsawing" means), that would not have happened.

                The current "labor movement" is an empty shell.

          •  Maybe, it's the union (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nada Lemming, George Hier

            That ought to join occupy?
            Occupy's greatest stregnth may be its greatest weakness. Or vice- versa.
            But.
            It's always someone else's fault.  Someone else's responsibility.

          •  It's hard to join forces with organizations (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, George Hier

            (aka unions) that are not willing to act in their own interests.

            Occupy Oakland, regardless of its anarchist origins, has been more than willing to work with organized labor, especially its rank and file, but including the bosses if they are willing to step up to the plate.  But by and large they have not been willing.

            For proof, see my diaries on Castlewood and Longview.  OO was willing to go and battle police in fucking Longview, WA in the goddammed snow and slush in support of the ILWU rank and file.  

            Their leaders did them in (to the extent they were done in), not Occupy.

            •  sadly, the union leaderships in the US insist on (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              George Hier, schnecke21

              viewing themselves as "partners" with the owners, not as antagonists. And when the interests of the owners and the rank and file workers clash, the union leaderships work for their partners.

              They should have remembered that old IWW motto:  "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common".

            •  And the whole canceled Golden Gate Bridge (0+ / 0-)

              picket.  All of the Occupies I've been a part of have been more than willing to go out and support union actions and have been happy when the unions come and march with them.

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

              by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:16:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The anarchist elements, at least large parts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wsexson

            of the anarchist elements, have been pushing to get labor off their ass for years and were more than happy to work with labor groups.  We welcomed labor.  What occupy is resisting is being taken over by other groups and turned into a campaigning organization.  I think that's a good instinct.  What should be happening is a connection between occupy and the rank and file of labor unions.  We aren't going to get the union bosses on board with what needs to be done.

            We saw a little of this in Wisconsin when there was a rising call for a general strike.  Which could have happened if it weren't pushed down by labor leaders.

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

            by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:15:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Problem with this is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT

              the tendency to equate anyone who is on staff or holds elective office in a local with "Union Bosses".

              In my local our people turned out early to support OWS, only to discover that people at the GA presumed to exercise an effective veto over our choice of our own leadership.

              It's fine for OWS to determine its own internal structure but if you are going to work in coalitions with others, you have to respect their chosen structure as well.

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 05:13:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  True, however I noticed that taking part (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WB Reeves

                in Occupy seemed to break down some of those barriers for a lot of anarchists as they realized that the shop steward wasn't a "boss"  in the way that a lot of them thought.

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

                by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 05:31:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong way to look at it (19+ / 0-)

      as I tried to explain in this post.

      We have an Occupy candidate for President imo.

      We have an Occupy political party.

      Not on every issue of course.  But on the fundamental point of Occuopy, economic fairness, Occupy has won the narrative.

      •  Verbally, Occupy. In practice, the Corrupt (7+ / 0-)

        Organizations -- pervasive fraud in every transaction, money laundering for drug- and arms-dealers, terrorists even -- continue to walk away time after time after time with fines totaling 1 or 3% of their take with no one in charge admitting guilt, let along being indicted.

        Hell, even the fines come out of the shareholders' stake.

        Holder is not part of Occupy. Geithner is not part of Occupy. Both are heavily invested in the Banksters security uber alles.

        When we hear that a William Black type is given rein as the President's top officials and advisers, then we go beyond mere words spoken for campaign purposes.

        Really, there's no achieving any of the noble things proposed until the Corrupt Organizations see the Capo de Banksters doing perp walks. The Depression, as several non-Wall Street-dependent economics have stated, does not begin to end until the criminal class is jailed.


        The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

        by Jim P on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:26:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No way do we have an Occupy President (9+ / 0-)

        Now I KNOW I have to disagree. This president is a corporate sellout empty suit. He is centrist-right. He TALKS pretty...and that's about it. He TALKS about gay marriage...and that's about it. He TALKS about reversing the Bush Tax Cuts for millionaires...and then gives them right back. He TALKS. A lot.

        What he DOES is another thing entirely. And I don't blame him, but I blame the country and the culture and the hystrionics of the media. In a nutshell.

        "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

        by DaddyO on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:28:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Please (8+ / 0-)

        That is taking it way too far.

        President Obama is not an Occupy candidate.  The Democrats and some other organizations are making use of the best messaging from Occupy and are desperately trying to capture some of that energy.  

        In other words, they are using Occupy as a marketing ploy.

        Some of them might really believe the ideas they are adopting, but there has been no sign of them actually intending to act on it.

        Case in point, the Dodd Frank disaster and before anyone says, 'well that was the best they could do with the terrible horrible Republicans (and yes they are terrible horrible but the Dems controlled Congress at that point) one only has to look at the way Dodd-Frank in the implementation phase, and that is entirely under the control of the executive branch.

        Let's get real.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:42:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Occupy narrative (6+ / 0-)

          Honestly, I think you folks have some other notion of how movements work.

          When your message is "coopted," you succeeded. Is the work over? Obviously not, but it should be pone of the goals of a a movement.

          •  no, it takes more than that (6+ / 0-)
            When your message is "coopted," you succeeded.
            When your message is co-opted AND IMPLEMENTED (or at least attempted to), THEN you have succeeded.

            Until then, it's just election-year lip service.

            Especially when the same party that is mouthing your message is clubbing you over the head and pepper-spraying you.

          •  this is exactly it. The reason Elizabeth Warren (5+ / 0-)

            has a real chance of beating a relatively well-liked incumbent is because of Occupy. She was already doing this kind of work, but I don't think she would even be the candidate if Occupy hadn't happened.
            Similarly, the spine the Dems have finally grown was seeded by Occupy (see, no mixed metaphor!). We always had Sanders and a couple of others, but now we have the Schumers and other Democratic leadership. For Pete's sake (to quote Romney), Reid has come out swinging, maybe not directly on Occupy issues, but what do you think the "show your taxes" pressure on Romney is all about? There's probably many reasons he doesn't want his taxes (or lack thereof) revealed, but one of the main things that the Democrats know is that even if everything Romney did is legal, tax returns would reveal just how incredibly wealthy he is and how he doesn't use any of that wealth to make things better for anyone other than himself. His tax returns reveal the very inequities that Occupy made central to our national debate.

            We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

            by Tamar on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:41:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "Co-opted" means the message hijacked (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, joanneleon, George Hier

            for the purpose of gaining votes at the expense of the message. It is an age old method of taking the wind out of the sails of a movement by stealing its energy.

            It is like the Christians adopting pagan celebrations but converting the meaningto its own purposes in order to diffuse and water down Paganism.

            That is what is meant by co-opting.

            The irony is you are doing it too. Your attempt to convert the notion of "co-opt" to something people should favor is, itself, an example.

            My god... You obviously don't see that it won't work, which reveals how out of touch you are with the movement. In the Occupy movement, Kabuki Theater won't work as a tactic anymore, so you might as well quit trying, because you'll only elicit laughter, and disgust.  

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:52:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  "Occupy president"? Surely you jest (6+ / 0-)

        It was Obama's DHS that coordinated the death of Occupy with police forces around the country.

        Occupy has made several strategic mistakes (lethal ones, I think). Those include:

        (1) over-reliance on an idealistic utopian vision of full consensus and an enormous tent--which was just a recipe for doing nothing but debate ideology and theory. Communes work with small groups of like-minded people.  They don't work when you are trying to unite everyone from the anarchists to the libertarians. It was an impossible task.

        (2) a mistaken emphasis on the "occupy" part rather than the "wall street" part, which led to a doomed attempt to make holding the parks the be-all and end-all of the movement (and leading to the death of the movement when we inevitably lost the parks). It also shifted the whole aim of the movement form being a fight with Wall Street (which the whole country supported) to a fight with the cops (which, rightly, no one supported).

        (3) a refusal to concentrate its resources in a coherent direction rather than trying to do everything at once. Several of Occupy's campaigns, such as the move your money and the foreclosure defense, had enormous potential, but were unfortunately drowned and diluted by a  big long laundry list of other things (many of questionable relevance to a fight with wall Street). When we try to do EVERYTHING, we end up accomplishing NOTHING. That was a mistake. When the ship is rudderless by design, then it can't be steered, and it just drifts aimlessly from one point of the compass to another.

        As an organization, Occupy was, sadly, a failure, and can teach us much about how NOT to "organize" a social movement.  As a movement, though, Occupy was enormously successful. It changed the entire national dialogue, it brought things to the table that neither political party had the balls to put forth, it inspired a new generation of progressive activists, and it showed us a model of social change independent of both political parties. While Occupy is now pretty much dead, its spirit lives on. Whatever the next movement is, its leadership will come out of Occupy.

        •  I think your focus is myopic (4+ / 0-)

          at best.

        •  Well at least he didn't fold his tent and go home (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          One Opinion

          Did he always make the best choices? No, he did not. Is it fair to say that he did not? Yes, it is.

          But what is not fair is to act as if he is the problem.Like Van Jones said, some people acting as if electing President Obama was like "downloading an app". They seem to believe it was that simple to make massive change.

          I think we need to weed out the political poseurs from the real movement types. One way you can tell the difference is that the former is all about excuses and blame while the latter understands what we are trying to do cannot be done by a single president or several cycles of Congress.

          Let's stop pointing fingers and get to work changing the minds of our fellow citizens. Expecting change to come any other way is divisive and counterproductive.

          "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

          by sebastianguy99 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:22:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Occupiers (4+ / 0-)

            (the real ones) didn't fold tents and go home. They were beaten, pushed, jabbed, teargassed, pepper sprayed, arrested, jailed, hospitalized, harassed, displaced, and dispersed by authoritarian mayors who were often Democrats, with some help and coordination from DHS.

            In one case in Portland, in a Federal park, DHS was directly involved.

            They didn't fold their tents. Their tents, libraries, clothing, computers, food, and equipment, were ripped up and left in tatters in the parks, to be scooped up later by tractors and garbage trucks.

            But Obama folded his tent a long time ago by becoming influenced by Wall STreet money.

            When he leaves office, he will be firmly established in the 1%.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:18:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  here's another way to tell the difference: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            George Hier, joanneleon
            I think we need to weed out the political poseurs from the real movement types. One way you can tell the difference is that the former is all about excuses and blame while the latter understands what we are trying to do cannot be done by a single president or several cycles of Congress.
            The ones who send cops to clunk you over the head, are not on your side:

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

            Homeland Security Documents Show Massive Nationwide Monitoring of Occupy Movement
            Documents just obtained by the PCJF from its FOIA request show massive nationwide monitoring, surveillance and information sharing between the Department of Homeland Security and local authorities in response to Occupy. The PCJF, also on behalf of author/filmmaker Michael Moore and the National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee, has made a series of FOIA demands regarding law enforcement involvement in the Occupy Crackdown. ...

            This set of released materials reveals intense involvement by the DHS' National Operations Center (NOC) in these activities. The DHS describes the NOC as, "the primary national-level hub for domestic situational awareness, common operational picture, information fusion, information sharing, communications, and coordination pertaining to the prevention of terrorist attacks and domestic incident management. The NOC is the primary conduit for the White House Situation Room and DHS Leadership for domestic situational awareness and facilitates information sharing and operational coordination with other federal, state, local, tribal, non-governmental operation centers and the private sector."

        •  This: (0+ / 0-)

          "Whatever the next movement is, it's leadership will come out of Occupy". That's exactly right.  There was never any hope that Occupy could create the changes that we need in this country, but it could create the conditions that would make that change possible.  Occupy brought tens of thousands of people out into the streets to be counted, to say WE are unhappy with the direction of our country, WE are unhappy with our political  leadership, WE are unhappy with our economic system, and WE count.  We succeeded in showing up and counting.  Now it's up to us each to ACT.

      •  Well, he mouths occupy rhetoric (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming, Illinibeatle

        from time to time, but the people he has in policy making positions of authority in his admin--probably not Occupiers, lol.  I mean there is some value in mouthing the message, because sometimes messages do redound in action.  Sometimes.

        Not to be a wet blanket, because Occupy's message goes well beyond Obama, this election, the USA.  Obama is barely a comma in terms of what occupy is about and perhaps where the world is going in terms of seismic events.  Politicians are tools, as you are fond of saying.  After Obama is long gone, the truth and message of Occupy will remain.  How will the world deal with it?

        “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” - Harriet Tubman

        by Publius2008 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 10:04:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If Obama were an Occupy candidate. (5+ / 0-)

        The banksters would be in jail.
        Banks would not have been bailed out while everyone else was sold out.
        People would not, now, still be being kicked out of there homes because of illegal actions in the past by banks, and homeowners would have gotten aid.
        Eddie DeMarco would not still be in charge of Fannie & Freddie's oversight org.

        Just for starters.

      •  You obviously (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, Nada Lemming, AoT, George Hier

        don't grasp the bottom up, horizontal, people-centered nature of occupy that is about as far away from the Democratic party as it gets.

        Occupy is more reminiscent of the labor movement of the early twentieth century that was beaten, clubbed, and battled against by the authorities.

        Have you ever set foot in one occupy general assembly and spent any time at all getting a real sense, on the ground, what drives the movement?

        To say we have an Occupy President is an insult to anyone involved in that movement.

        I was present in Portland when DHS evicted occupiers from the federal park. No, Obama is not an occupy president. He sent in the goons to expel the occupiers.

        He can't both imprison occupiers and claim to be an occupy President without eliciting an involuntary laugh from the gut. My, what balderdash, what double speak, and how Orwellian. This is blatantly propagandistic.

        I challenge Obama to go to the next Occupy march and yell with the rest of us, "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!" And then go back to his office and fire his Wall Street/Goldman Sachs/Banking industry servants and put a progressive in the Treasury department and key financial positions.

        He is complicity beholden to the industrial military complex, the industrial medical complex, the corporate class.

        You won't be winning over any real occupiers with this nonsense. You will merely disgust them and alienate them even more.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:39:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Occupy has established a brain trust (22+ / 0-)

      Of savvy social issues individuals that are now connected and interconnected.  They've changed what the beltway is serving, they will continue to do this. They are facing down the most powerful oligarchy the world has ever known.  So far they've done it without calling for bloodshed too.

      •  Here in Boston, we've put the BPD feet to the fire (10+ / 0-)

        on issues of bigotry, which a piece of the white patriarchal oligarchy system we're all suffering from.

        It's not just about fielding candidates. Its about digging in where you can to bring corrupt systems down. Our Clean Up BPPA work has tentacles that go right to the Mayor. It is possible that it will shake up his re-election bid like nothing before has been able to. (He's running for a 5th term.) Clean Up BPPA is not an Occupy Boston group, per se, but the core of us never would have met if it weren't for Occupy. This is the kind of autonomous action that Occupy spawned.

        Don't diss the strategy of not supporting candidates. There is so much corruption that some of us can't feel good about that. Obama is in bed with Geithner, Bernanke et al... and he's gunning, er droning, down civil and human rights everywhere. I get the "least of two evils" argument, but it's a lot to ask Occupy to support candidates who are a part of that. We're coming at it from a different angle.

        The Tea Party may have gotten some kind of short-term wins with candidates, but they haven't fundamentally changed anything. And those candidates aren't exactly popular now. We're working to expose and pound away at the corruption itself and get the voters to see what their votes are really getting them. When it changes the agenda of the candidates, then that feels like a success. I don't care who the mayor is, for instance. I do care what the mayor does. So, if he keeps lording over a white-male dominated administration and police department, I'm going to keep screaming about that.

        •  Well I love you guys (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          UnaSpenser, laurnj, joe from Lowell, Tamar

          If I didn't live in Alabama and have no chance of aiding any occupy movement I would have applied my elbow grease to an occupy endeavor.  Keep on keeping on, we need you.

        •  I've always felt that Obama picked the absolutely (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          One Opinion, Militarytracy

          wrong economic/financial team. Geithner may not have been a Wall Street investor himself, but he was part of the Wall Street scene and his thinking is dredged in that culture. And Larry Summers is/was an arrogant smug POS who thinks his brain is so much bigger than anyone else's that only his ideas are any good, despite the mess he and his former boss made of the economy in previous years (and despite the blatant stupidity and ignorance he showed at Harvard).
          I think Obama felt that economics and military action were not his strengths and he picked people whom he thought had the most experience and expertise, but they were exactly the wrong ones -- they pushed him in the wrong directions. I wish he had chosen economists/financial advisors like Krugman and Reich.
          During the last 3 1/2 years, I think he's gained confidence in those areas and his recent behavior -- not just on the campaign trail but in his dealings with the Republicans gives me some hope for his second term.
          As for " droning down civil and human rights everywhere," I understand exactly what you're saying and it's incredibly painful. My guess is that he felt the choice was either more invasions or drones. I'm not sure those are the only two options and I'm very sure that giving the CIA any authority in things like that is a terrible mistake. But he did end our occupation in Iraq and, so far, is sticking to his word about leaving Afghanistan. A Republican would probably keep us there forever and wouldn't have left Iraq completely.
          All that said, I'm still an Obama supporter because of the other policy choices he's made: health care, student loans, women's pay, women's reproductive rights, tax cuts, gay rights. And I'm aware that if he hadn't been dealing with the most disgusting obstructionist opposition in our history, we would have much more investment in infrastructure, renewable energy, public services; our economy would be improving and jobs would be increasing much faster. He tried not to take the route taken by the "austerity" demanding European leaders. Our limited austerity measures were forced down his throat.

          We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

          by Tamar on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:58:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree (13+ / 0-)

      Above analysis fails to take into account the real impact of language and symbolic framing. The very fact that POTUS re-election campaign has adopted a much more populist vocabulary and framing is itself evidence that Occupy, in the larger sense, "worked."

      •  Vocabulary? Sure. Actions? (4+ / 0-)

        Didn't this President give us a health care bill that is a wet dream to Big Pharma and the in actuality evil health care industry? Wasn't that the most convoluted and, in my opinion, perverted way to 'cover' every American?

        Was the public option or single payer EVER even a possibility? Like it is in, oh, I dunno, EVERY SINGLE OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY EXCEPT MINE?

        Sorry. President Obama has so little to do with the radical and common sense approaches of Occupy, the entire thesis of this post befuddles me. I can hardly believe it...it's almost like you're providing cover for Obama when he deserves criticism, most heartily. It didn't work for me or a lot of other people on this site, Armando, but thanks for trying.

        HE HAS MY VOTE, by the way, just in case you were gonna bring THAT up.

        "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

        by DaddyO on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:32:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, not ever country has single payer (0+ / 0-)

          A lot do, but may have hybrid systems that look vaguely like what Obama's plan looks like but with broader coverage.  I'm pretty sure France and Australia fall into that category.

          I favor Single Payer as well though.

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

          by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:02:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Occupy Movement itself may be a joke to (16+ / 0-)

      people (and I agree, BTW, too many still see the Occupy folks as DFHs and dismiss them without consideration) but the Occupy Movement has been wildly successful in changing what the country is talking about.  

      If Occupy hadn't come along when they did...the vultures in Congress might have succeeded in getting a few more of our spineless Dems to help them adopt the cat food commission's recommendations.  

      Instead, the conversation turned to discussing the existence of a 1% in our country and how they were locking the doors of opportunity behind them.  

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

      by koosah on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:22:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This, exactly. (10+ / 0-)

        Who cares what people think about OWS itself?

        I care what people think about income inequality, about the influence of the financial sector on the political system, and about other actual substantive issues.

        "Occupy" isn't a candidate running for office, who needs to be popular.  Heck, they aren't even the "face" of an issue - there probably isn't one in 100,000 Americans who could identify an individual who is high up in the movement.  And they don't even endorse candidates.

        They have no reason to care about their own popularity, because making themselves popular has nothing to do with what they are trying to accomplish.  That must be very liberating.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:50:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As someone who has been a part of OWS (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          koosah

          since the beginning I've been trying to get people to understand this!  I don't care if you think I'm a dirty pot smoking hippie that goes around in all black smashing windows and eating puppies.  I know I'm not those things and the media is talking about this shit.  I want people to agree with what occupy has to say, not agree with who we are.

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

          by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:22:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I wish I could rec this a million times. n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          koosah

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

          by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:23:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Very true (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        One Opinion, koosah

          Don't believe that Occupy changed the direction of the discussion? Watch Obama talking about Medicare's financial position with Ryan in 2010 and it's all about deficit-reduction and austerity. No way does he go there now, because many (and I'd say the majority) of people know inequality and unemployment are our biggest economic problems, not the deficit.

           And if Obama grabs more of the Occupy rhetoric and policy, to show that far too many people are losing in this country because of the huge influence of Wall Street and big money on our politics, it's a winner. Especially since Wall Street cash is flowing to Romney and Koch whore Paul Ryan, why not call out the vampire squid? And combine it with an attack on outsourcing and vulture capitalism (like in the Bain attacks, which have been very successful, probably because they ring true).

           The key is not to stop once November 2012 comes around. We will need to confront all Dems after that election and tell them that they HAVE TO DELIVER on making the game more fairer, or else we'll kick them out and find candidates that will.

    •  There hasn't been an election yet. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, Aquarius40, laurnj, wu ming, Tamar

      Occupy only got started in the summer of 2011.

      Also, changing the agenda is a big deal.  The actual political actors work within a defined set of parameters.  Changing those parameters is extremely important.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:25:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Iwould not say that it has been a "huge" (0+ / 0-)

      disappointment but you make some valid points. Hard to admit it but the baggers did get more accomplished than we have , and that's just a fact that can't and shouldn't be ignored. I'll get slammed for this I expect but just stating the truth as I see it, don't like it but I'm not running away from it either.

      Just give me some truth. John Lennon--- OWS------Too Big To Fail

      by burnt out on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:26:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  today I had to ask a friend WHY anyone who is a (17+ / 0-)

    UNION man, raised in a UNION household would or could ever support Romney and the Republicans...   he had no answer...yet HE, a union man raised in a union household, supports Romney for President....

    (bangs head on keyboard)

    "You've got to be an optimist to be a Democrat, and a humorist to stay one" - Will Rogers

    by KnotIookin on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:10:53 AM PDT

    •  Oh, I'm sure he had an answer (14+ / 0-)

         It was just an answer he was too embarrassed to articulate.  Like, perhaps, the president's non-Caucasianness.

         Poor whites enlisted for the Confederate Army, after all.

      "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

      by Buzzer on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:18:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did you ask him to share with you one, true (7+ / 0-)

      reason why voting for Romney would in your best interest?  I'm running into the same difficulty.  I ask them why or to share one good thing that Romney would do for me, and I get things like: "He'll put Americans back to work."  I ask how?  How does he plan to do that, given his track record as a business man of being one of those who shipped jobs overseas?  I get confused stares, or blank looks, or I don't know.  

      Aaaargh!  It's bizarre.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:21:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I get (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billlaurelMD, laurnj, bkamr

        the "Romney has a business degree and experience in business", and "Romney understands how to cut spending", and so forth, as well as a lot of thinly disguised racist and wedge issue crap.

        Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

        by KibbutzAmiad on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:48:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just keep mildly asking how and why until they (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KibbutzAmiad

          run out of Faux News talking points, and they become like blank computers with That Does Not Compute blinking.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:57:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  in the end (0+ / 0-)

            with the people I talk to it comes down to bigotry or wedge issues.  (abortion, mostly).  They won't vote for a Democrat because Jesus told them not to.

            Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

            by KibbutzAmiad on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:03:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  yes, several (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YuccaPete, KnotIookin

      people I work with - PUBLIC employees - are doing the same.

      Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

      by KibbutzAmiad on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:47:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh yeah! (3+ / 0-)

        My wife works in a USDA research center and all of the white, middle-middle class "admin ladies" hate "Big Gubmint" [even though they've been gov't employees for years; >30 in one case]. They make disparaging comments about the president - "Boy I'll be sure glad when we can take that [expletive] Obama photograph down." All vote Republican, support Chick-fil-A, and all the rest of the GOP/Bagger BS. They no longer discuss politics with my wife - they know she's a Democrat - because whenever they, do she blugeons them with facts and asks them for the rationale behind their beliefs. They never get further than: Well, because!"

        Mental inertia - amazing.

        The scientists working there, as you'd expect - exactly the opposite - all Obama supporters.

        •  You put your finger on it. The GOP validates (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YuccaPete

          mental inertia as being a cool thing, something like a VIP pass or a secret handshake that gets you into the world you aspire to, but alas!, mental inerts everywhere, that world is the GOP hologram that you can look at but never enter.   Ha-ha-ha on you all.

          Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

          by judyms9 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:18:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I had the opposite experience yesterday -- the guy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YuccaPete, KnotIookin

      who came to look at our DVR (from Verizon). I asked him if he was registered to vote (I ask as many people as possible, everywhere I go) and he said his grandmother would turn over in her grave if he weren't. He said the DVR needs to be replaced -- it's the 3rd one! -- suggesting the problem was power surges from all the storms. When I talked about climate change causing so many severe storms, he was entirely in agreement. (BTW, I do use a surge protector, but the constant and sudden offs and ons of power, a few times/week, are impossible to protect against).
      I asked him if he was a union member -- and he's a proud member of the CWA -- it's on his shirt.
      And he loved the Obama shirts we had just gotten in the mail.
      I'm hoping for a real resurgence of unions in this country:

      Oh, you can't scare me, I'm sticking to the union,
      I'm sticking to the union, I'm sticking to the union.

      We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

      by Tamar on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 10:06:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent analysis, Armando. (10+ / 0-)

    This is a great collection of evidence you've gathered here. Thank you.

  •  Í'm fully behind the Occupy movement (13+ / 0-)

    I treasure their brain trust, I treasure their nonviolent protests and civil disobedience.  Though the press downplayed all of their protests, they were large and would have grown if our Democrats had not responded to the needs to the people.  The beltway can be impossible at times to penetrate.  Occupy penetrated the beltway!  I would not want to live in an America at this time without an Occupy movement.

    •  Nice sentiment, but... (0+ / 0-)

      They've done nothing, and they're fading into obscurity. Right on schedule. According to the puppet masters.

      Until they come up with something more than meeting out of doors, they will continue to be ignored by the media and run completely out of gas and power. I have no idea what they should do. I have no idea what I should do. Or you.

      All I know is what I see in front of me. Giving them credit for what they've done--bringing many issues to light, if only briefly--is good. But lionizing them for...what? What have they done lately? Have they endorsed Obama? Have they brought any legislation to states or even Congress? Do they have a platform? What laws did they muster in when I wasn't looking?

      Good Christ, people, there's a HUGE difference between TALK and ACTION. The elected officials take action. Then we get to praise or criticize them accordingly. Occupy...? What have they done? Besides meet? Well...they've INSPIRED, but they have done NOT MUCH at all. And I weep.

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:37:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only thing I can fathom (4+ / 0-)

        Is that you refuse to pay attention to the political discourse as it changes, evolves, emerges.

      •  they're not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fearlessfred14

        a monolithic group that can endorse a candidate.  They are grassroots and comprised of a lot of different political philosophies (including a lot of anarchists, which makes it hard to get them to line up behind organized party candidates).  

        Still, it's a huge difference to hear the language of class economics mentioned on t.v.  That didn't happen pre-occupy - not since the days when labor reps were on the talking head shows.

        Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

        by KibbutzAmiad on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:05:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow! (8+ / 0-)

        Occupy single handedly changed the national discussion from deficit reduction to inequality.  If for no reason, other than that, the Occupy Movement has been successful. The public consciousness of the dire issues facing us has been awakened.  

        When American citizens are being jailed and beaten for no reason other than lawful and peaceful assembly, it is hard to maintain the public presence of the movement.  I find it amazing that people have written off the Occupy Movement in such a short period of time.

        It is wrong to write off Occupy. First, Occupy is not a political movement tied to any political party. It is first a social movement, like the women's movement or the civil rights movement, calling attention to the economic injustices in our current system.  Will it morph into a political movement eventually?  Maybe.  But it seems that it would have more impact at this juncture by avoiding the traditional political party power structures.

        "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

        by gulfgal98 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:14:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What the &*%^ has Occupy done? (0+ / 0-)

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

        by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:26:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Where I live there are still a lot of (13+ / 0-)

    people who view the Occupy Movement itself as just a bunch of DFHs wanting freebies (thank you very much, corporate media).  

    But they are listening to the President and when he says things like this

    a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by
    they agree.  If only we can get the other Dems to follow the president's lead.  This is not "attacking capitalism;" this is fighting for fairness.  

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

    by koosah on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:15:09 AM PDT

    •  This view of the base of the movement (0+ / 0-)

      being lazy slackers is probably why we don't have a candidate running under the occupy label.  But when their announced demonstrations attracted thousands and thousands of protesters, I think that was when they will be heard, they will either change the discourse or the protests are going to get bigger.

    •  yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koosah, laurnj

      when framed in a work-ethic fairness argument, which is essentially the very premise of OWS movement, perhaps absent the bongo drums (lol), it resonates.  And the response from the wingers is cartoonish -- "you just want free beer (or whatever)." Well, let me tell you, some (not all -- some are decent people) of the laziest, give me something for nothing people I have ever met are entitled trust-fund babies. I know many of these little shits, and I despise them.  

  •  I'll say it: Occupy saved my ass. (17+ / 0-)

    Me personally. Whatever else it did or didn't do, it saved my personal ass. I just came to this realization a few days ago. Occupy went through the roof at almost the exact moment my marriage tragically came to a violent end. When Occupy shot through the roof it was just what I needed. It was a diversion of sorts for me. It gave me something to redirect into.

    Suddenly, there was something more important.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:19:52 AM PDT

  •  Occupy has done a lot of good. Have to admit I'm (6+ / 0-)

    a little disappointed that it hasn't been able to stay strong. That is partly due to the media coverage, or lack of it I should say, and often when they  did cover it they did so in a negative way. But still  the movement did open the door to changing the conversation and that in itself was huge.

    It has made a difference.

    Just give me some truth. John Lennon--- OWS------Too Big To Fail

    by burnt out on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:20:56 AM PDT

    •  The pepper spray (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burnt out

      The ridiculous police tactics ---well, that got media coverage.  The fact that peaceful assembly is for all intent and purposes met w/domestic terrorist tactics - and that every thinking American now KNOWS this - oh my yes we ALL owe the Occupy movement a big debt of gratitude.  They showed their fellow Americans that "this is NOT your Grandparent's democracy or even your parent's".  I admire every last one of them.

      "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." - Flannery O'Conner

      by Dixiedemocrat on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 10:23:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Grassroots movements can shift the debate... (11+ / 0-)

    in a way that prominent political figures, even a President with a bully pulpit, cannot.  Prominent political figures come with partisan and factional baggage, so their messaging in issues tens to send everyone to their respective corners.

    Occupy was very successful last summer and fall at agenda-setting.  BTW, you can go back further than January to see President Obama adopting their message.  He really started in on this stuff in September.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:22:47 AM PDT

    •  This is true Joe (5+ / 0-)

      I chose the SOTU because it was a major staging point.

      Good to agree with you for a change.

    •  Occupy Americanized class war for the culture. (5+ / 0-)

      Thee most powerful result of Occupy was to provide an understanding of class warfare with unique images and words suited for an American culture.   This is why Obama's populist-like attacks on Rommey are working now--they would not have worked four years ago.  Occupy in essence farrowed the culture to understand the class divide by universalizing the ideas of the 1% and 99%.  

      In American, words like "capitalist", "petite bourgeois", "proletariat" have forever been removed from the approved lexicon of public discourse for a long time now.  There was nothing allowed or accepted to replace the ideas needed to understand class war.

      Some people rather naively think Occupy failed because it did essentially produce more Democrats in office or offer this or that specific policy initiative.  No and no.  It raised class consciousness and gave people just enough of a base to imagistically understand the divide of classes within the country.

      This is why an aggressive populist attack will work on Ryan which before Occupy would have been little noticed or accepted.  Understanding the situation will lead to votes and action.

      •  Sorry this paragraph needs editing. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe from Lowell

        "Some people rather naively think Occupy failed because it did NOT essentially produce more Democrats in office or offer this or that specific policy initiative."

        •  from the beginning, many here wanted OWS to be (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrWebster, Nada Lemming

          an appendage of the Democratic party.  When they asked "what does Occupy want?", what they were really asking is "does Occupy support my legislative agenda?"  When they asked "Why can't Occupy DO something?", what they were really asking is "Will Occupy be phone-banking and GOTV-ing for Democratic candidates?"

          The answer to both questions is "no".  And the Dem party never liked those answers.

          The Dem party is owned by Wall Street just as much as the Repug party is.  That cannot be otherwise, in an electoral system which is completely dominated by the money held by a tiny segment of the population.

          Many people here will cheer Occupy when it protests at the Republican Convention.  And many people here will boo Occupy when it also protests at the Democratic Convention (at BANK OF AMERICA STADIUM, for crissakes). And those are the people who never understood Occupy from the beginning.

          •  Excellent points. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nada Lemming

            While Obama may gain from the consciousness raising of Occupy, I seriously doubt if he would use the office to push, shove, and demand changes to the financial systems during his second term.

            Kudos to his re-election team for their timing and content of ads...but...

            I am too stuck on the image of Obama praising Jamie Dimon as a smart business man whose company needed a $30 billion bailout, and then about a month later, publicly supported the mass firing of inner city teachers for supposedly failing at their jobs.

          •  Wall Street doesn't agree with your assessment. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WB Reeves

            Money talks.

            What's particularly striking about the figures in that piece is that Wall Street traditionally splits its donations pretty evenly, in order to buy the goodwill of whoever eventually wins.  This time, not only are they all-in for one side, but they are all-in for the candidate who is probably going to lose.  This is a dramatic break from the pattern, a dramatic break from 2008, and a very clear sign that they don't share your sentiments about the relative merits of the two parties for Wall Street's agenda.

            It's a rookie mistake to assume that your opponent's thoughts and motivations are the polar opposite of your own.  Just because you didn't get everything you wanted from the administration doesn't mean that Wall Street likes them.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:38:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you are partly right: (0+ / 0-)

              I did a diary on the money pattern a while ago:

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

              But you are wrong about a few things . . .

              Wall Street traditionally splits its donations pretty evenly, in order to buy the goodwill of whoever eventually wins.
              Not really true-----they do give money to both sides in every election (as does nearly every industry, with a few notable exceptions), but it tends to be pretty lopsided towards the winning side.
              but they are all-in for the candidate who is probably going to lose.  This is a dramatic break from the pattern, a dramatic break from 2008,
              You are mistaken---in 2008, wall Street overwhelmingly went for the winning side----Obama.  (Goldman Sachs was Obama's largest single contributor.)  It was 2010 which broke the long-running pattern------Wall Street money went for the Democrats in Congress, one of the very rare times when they backed the losing side.
              2008, and a very clear sign that they don't share your sentiments about the relative merits of the two parties for Wall Street's agenda.
              Your statement here is rather mystifying, since in 2008, the very year you mention, Wall Street went overwhelmingly for Obama.
              It's a rookie mistake to assume that your opponent's thoughts and motivations are the polar opposite of your own.
              I quite agree.  which is why I prefer to look at the actual contribution figures.  Ya know, the ones that went overwhelmingly for Democrats in both 2008 and 2010.  
              Just because you didn't get everything you wanted from the administration doesn't mean that Wall Street likes them.
              I don't care whether Wall Street likes the Administration---I care only if the Administration likes Wall Street.  (Although the fact that Wall Street money went overwhelmingly for Dems in the past two elections already answers the question whether Wall Street likes Democrats.)  And given that most of Obama's economic team is directly from wall Street (Goldman Sachs in particular), I think that question has already been answered.
              •  You seem to have reversed everything. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                One Opinion, WB Reeves

                You keep "correcting" me and then restating exactly what I just said.

                First, you said I was wrong about donating more to the winning side, when it was the next sentence you quoted.

                You said I was wrong about this being a break from 2008, and then repeated my argument about how strange it is for them to be backing the losing candidate right back to me.

                Also, you are incorrect about Wall Street's 2010 donations.  They donated far more to Republicans than to Democrats.

                ur statement here is rather mystifying, since in 2008, the very year you mention, Wall Street went overwhelmingly for Obama.
                I can see how it might be mystifying for you, since you failed to read it.  Take another look - that sentence isn't about 2008, but rather, about a dramatic break from 2008...
                I quite agree.  which is why I prefer to look at the actual contribution figures.
                Apparently, you don't, since Wall Street donated much more heavily to Republicans in 2010.
                I don't care whether Wall Street likes the Administration---I care only if the Administration likes Wall Street.
                And rather than looking at Wall Street's donations as an indicator for whether Obama is doing what they want, which you don't seem to have done, you've decided to base your opinion on something else.  Clearly, not on the donations from 2010, which we've established heavily favored the Republicans, nor those in 2012.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:13:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  More on Wall Street Donations in 2010: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                One Opinion

                Wall St. cash flow imperils Democrats

                Money Quote:

                “Our target ratio for the 2010 cycle is 80-20 Republican,” said Karen Klugh, spokeswoman for the American Financial Services Association.
                It's funny to google this topic and read the stories over the course of the year, as the Republicans' advantage increases from 50-50 to 60-40 to 2:1 to 3:1 to 4:1 by election day.

                And this year, it's the same story.

                Money talks.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:28:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly right. Great comment. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrWebster, AoT, WB Reeves

        They are going to be writing books about the impact of OWS on American politics for years to come.  Everything you said, and more.

        Elsewhere on the thread, I equated it to run-blocking in football.  Occupy opened up a big hole for the Democrats to run through, and they picked up yardage.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:34:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good analogy. (0+ / 0-)

          My hope is that while Obama will have greatly benefited from the Occupy "blocking", the movement will have infused resistance to any attempt by a 2nd term Obama to keep the status quo in favor of the banksters by Democrats, leftists, and independents.

        •  this may or may not be true (it remains to be seen (0+ / 0-)
          Occupy opened up a big hole for the Democrats to run through, and they picked up yardage.
          but even if true, it means neither that Dems back Occupy, or that Occupy backs Dems. They don't.
          •  Why exactly (0+ / 0-)

            do you imagine this to be a crucial point?

            The question here is whether or not OWS objectively aided the Democrats by moving the political discourse to the Left. This is either accurate or it is not.

            The attitude of the Democratic Party towards OWS or OWS' attitude towards the Democrats is irrelevant.

             

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 04:51:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's a great point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrWebster

        I hadn't really realized it, but you're completely right.  We've got people using an Americanized vocabulary about class war.  These comments are full of great analysis that somehow I've managed to miss until now.

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

        by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:35:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is the dominant issue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laurnj, judyms9

    Amazingly, the Republicans are so reflexively against anything that we stand for, that rather than moderate and try to broaden their appeal even a little, they have instead dug in their heals and nominated two through-to-the-bone one percenters.  

    We should be sure that everyone in America knows that under Paul Ryan's plan, Mitt Romney would pay less than 1% in income taxes.  

    With Romney the candidate, I think it's going to be hard for them to make health care a big issue.  To the extent there are differences between Romneycare and Obamacare, many of those will be over niggling details which won't resonate with any large number of voters.

    The other big issue that ought to be even more prominent now with Ryan on the ticket, is access to contraceptive services.  Indeed, this is an important part of the health care debate, and may end up being the most important area of disagreement there between Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan.  This is a clear, easily understood issue, which should resonate.   I'd like to see Democrats go on the offensive on this one.

    •  Do we really want unfettered child-bearing (0+ / 0-)

      during an economic downtown--one precipitated by the banks--when almost all parents have to have a job?  (I wish the media wouldn't treat our economic mess as though it is part of a cyclical phenomenon like the salmon swimming upstream to spawn when it was a crime that could have been prevented and must be prevented in the future, which it won't be by the GOP.)

      Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

      by judyms9 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:27:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unless I see a HUGE uptick in Occupy's influence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerry J

    I call it as I see it: Occupy is a failed brand. The media ignores them. Their protests go unremarked in media, on the 'Net Tubes, etc. What have they done? Steered Democrats to the left?

    In WORDS only. Not in thought or deed, my friend. I disagree completely. Occupy Wall Street will be left at the kitchen door the day after the election by Obama and the Democrats. Why?

    Because there is no room for REAL change in DC or anywhere else in this pathetic, backwards country. A front-page post on the mighty Daily Kos website is not going to change that one bit.

    But it sure SOUNDS ENCOURAGING, doesn't it? It sure RALLIES THE TROOPS.

    Feh.

    "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

    by DaddyO on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:24:45 AM PDT

  •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell

    The Occupy movement zeroed in on banks, when it should have zeroed in on the top corporate class in general.  Worse, it vilified the very banks who remained most responsible through the run-up to the bubble (i.e., where lending was the tightest).  It could have vilified hospitals, corporate officers at insurance companies, &c.  Or it could have scapegoated the real villains: CountryWide, IndyMac, Washington Mutual, AIG, Wachovia.  No, it scapegoated their reluctant wards.

    And that was where it lost its momentum.  Anyone who has a mortgage at a bank does not consider themselves to be either the 99% or the 1%.  They consider themselves to be in between, part of a shrinking middle class that nobody seems to want to listen to anymore.  And that is about 45% of America, living in owner-occupied homes.

    And worse still--the movement knew absolutely nothing about banking, which is a very exacting trade filled with honest workers and hard workers.  The average salary at a bank is about the same as the average salary at a hospital, and below the average salary at a corporate law firm.  Occupy was not huge, simply noisy, and it often alienated the very people it was trying to reach, even while offering little real information.

    "Hibernate between 45 and 65 if you can."--VS Pritchett

    by joseph on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:27:00 AM PDT

    •  While true, this is a such a minor point. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      laurnj, judyms9

      Occupy functioned as a blunt instrument.  It went after the financial system as a whole, and shifted the debate over that sector and its political clout in the right direction.

      Yes, their message sometimes lacked nuance in the areas you describe, but it's not as though they were drafting legislation.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:54:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They knew nothing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, Nada Lemming, One Opinion

      about banking?  

      I would submit that the real situation here is that it is you who does not know much about Occupy.

      Have you followed Occupy the SEC and Alexis Goldstein and her writings on Dodd-Frank and the Volcker Rule?

      http://www.occupythesec.org/...

      I've talked with countless other people from Occupy in three different Occupy encampments, actually four now since I spent some time on several different days at the Occupy National Gathering last month.  Without exception, every person I talked to was highly informed, much more informed than the average American citizen. They get it. And they know what the solutions are to the problems, as do many people who have made proposals over the past few years and longer. Some have been warning about what would happen for more than a decade.

      I find this part of your comment to be baffling:

      it vilified the very banks who remained most responsible through the run-up to the bubble
      Can you explain what you mean by that?  Responsible?  Unprecedented risks were taken based on the assumption that real estate values would never go down. And when they did, these banks came crashing down and they had made so many bets that they took the economy down with them.  And then they had no intention of being held accountable for any of it.  They were bailed out and they continue to operate in largely the same way today, they are 30% bigger than they were when they were too big to fail in 2008. They are still taking outrageous risks and JP Morgan is the latest example of that, while trying to hide their massive hedge fund business in an obscure department of their operations.  This is one of the big banks that was painted as being so responsible.  This is happening in a commercial bank whose customer accounts are backed by the FDIC.

      That is really only scratching the surface. There are numerous books and documentaries that could help you understand the situation better.


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:16:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Baffling? (0+ / 0-)

        Responding to joanneleon:

        •  •  •

        I find this part of your comment to be baffling:

            it vilified the very banks who remained most responsible through the run-up to the bubble

        Can you explain what you mean by that?  Responsible?

        •  •  •

        Sure.  The banks that inherited the problems were not the banks that caused them.  I identified CountryWide, IndyMac, WaMu and Wachovia.  Those banks created most of the mortgage defaults, and there was a run on at least two of them, and the Feds had to hand them over to other banks--banks who did not over-extend themselves in the run-up to the debacle, notably Wells, BofA, Citi and Chase.  These latter four were banks that did not overextend themselves in the run-up to the degree the other three did (Wachovia was a special case, that needed to be taken over for other reasons).  Ironically, the Occupy people have conflated the latter four with the former four, who were at least stable enough to receive the nation's headaches.

        As for your patronizing comment about "understanding the situation better," I am retired from commercial banking myself, so I have enough time to read another good book on the subject.  In the meantime, to give you my own real-time view of the situation, I might refer you to my diary entry here from the very day in 2008 IndyMac failed.  Maybe some people with Occupy might like to read it too, if you're still in touch.

        IndyMac and the dismantling of consumer protection

        "Hibernate between 45 and 65 if you can."--VS Pritchett

        by joseph on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:28:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you going to completely ignore (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming

          the issue of the big Wall Street banks creating a ravenous demand for mortgages that they could package up and pass off as AAA rated?  Why do you think they were issuing mortgages like crazy?  Where were those mortgages going?

          And are you going to ignore the credit default swaps?  Will you also ignore the "shitty deals" that were sold as a good product when it was known that they were dogs and when Goldman, for example, was betting against their own clients who they sold these deals to?  Is that responsible behavior?

          The organizations that you identify were only part of the problem.  I can't understand why you are entirely ignoring the role of the investment banks and the massive level of risk they took (and still take).  They designed this delusional separation of risk and investment too and then let it run wild.  

          I don't see how a person with your knowledge of banking can ignore these elephants in the room and claim that the big banks on Wall Street were not to blame for this and that they acted responsibly.  Do you include Citi, Merrill and BofA in that number?


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:51:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But I haven't. (0+ / 0-)

            I haven't completely ignored "the issue of the big Wall Street banks creating a ravenous demand for mortgages that they could package up and pass off as AAA rated."   Ravenous demand is a function of a market, which doesn't scare me.  It's the second part that did.  It was indeed the lack of serious ratings and serious compliance and serious insurance that led to 80% of this crisis--which had little to do with ravenous demand (there is ravenous demand somewhere in the market every second).

            But the banks didn't do that--big commercial banks didn't decimate compliance--the Greenspan regulatory climate, the auditors, and the insurance companies did.

            You also ask "Why do you think they were issuing mortgages like crazy?  Where were those mortgages going?"  I think they [the big four] were not issuing obviously bad mortgages and liar loans anywhere near the degree CountyWide, IndyMac and WaMu were.  I think what they [investment banks and big four banks] were rather doing were taking bundles of mortgages that were issued by these liar-loan banks and using them as collateral on newly constructed bonds they could buy or sell.

            An investment bank a bunch of junk mortgages coming in and says, "oh boy, here comes another boatload of mortgages that are all guaranteed by US government at the institutional level in case of failure.  So let's get someone to insure this as a bond or a derivative, and sell that bond/derivative."  The only problem was, the insurers weren't doing the math necessary to offer real insurance.  There were no actuarial tables on any of these products, no real insurance being offered at all.  So compliance was a total joke.  Yes, people were being compliant--but compliance meant absolute nothing especially after 9/11, when there was real pressure to keep money flowing, and it got even worse through the decade.

            One day, a banker I knew was trying to put together a new (and really innocuous) product.  He came to me and I said, "compliance will need you to get that product insured, do you have backing yet?" He didn't. But he came back two days later and XXX had insured it for $250 million.  I said, "How is that possible in two days?"  He said, with a completely straight face, "Oh, XXX just figures that if we can't cover a failure [within our own bank] ourselves, then it's all melted down anyway."  Naturally, it was a real estate banker.  And naturally, I said, "But that's not insurance."  And it wasn't.  Yet it was "compliance."  And he could have easily done it the right way.  But that's what compliance was in the Bush era: 'insurance" that had no actuarial basis, backing products that were indeed compliant simply because an insurance company was willing to make them so.  And I hate to say it, but it started under Clinton.  But it just got completely bananas under Bush.  And it was driven by the auditing companies, the insurance companies, and as soon as Bush got the wheel, the regulators themselves.

            "Hibernate between 45 and 65 if you can."--VS Pritchett

            by joseph on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:19:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The election is like "Road Warrior" (0+ / 0-)

    Hippies surrounded by powerful marauders bent on consuming every last resource no matter who it kills, and it's all about oil vs. civilization.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:30:55 AM PDT

  •  Occupy is not about elections (7+ / 0-)

    The Dems may try to claim Occupy for itself, but the reality is that the current Dem party is every bit as much the target of Occupy as the Repugs are.  Both are wholly owned by Wall Street.

    As long as elections are dominated by money, elections are not an effective pathway to social change.

    Occupy has made many strategic mistakes that crippled it (largely because of its naivete and inexperience). But it has shown us the way.

    •  Exactly. Occupy isn't defining the elections, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pfiore8

      the condition of the system and our nation is defining it.  To think these issues wouldn't be talked about if Occupy hadn't happened is ludicrous.

      "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

      by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:43:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Occupy has been one of the more exciting (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deep, laurnj, judyms9, Odysseus, Nada Lemming

    developments for me these past couple of years. Yes, it's made a) Democratic politicians bolder, on average, than before and b) the RW more hysterical. We just have to nurse along the former trend as best we can, and keep an eye on the latter.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:36:04 AM PDT

  •  Grassroots and electoral movements (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell

    are both important.  They complement and push against each other.  There is nothing wrong with having both.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:36:58 AM PDT

  •  OWS's biggest achievement, by far (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalSal

    Agree with the diary, and I also agree with the consensus within OWS that it should not get directly involved in electoral politics. But, damn, I sure wish it would start to develop specific, detailed legislative and policy initiatives and work to get them passed and implemented. That would be the start of a real movement.

    "Favoring the use of torture is not a political position, it's a mental illness." -- Devilstower

    by scorponic on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:37:07 AM PDT

    •  That's not the job of an activist movement. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT

      Their job is to spur others into creating detailed legislative and policy initiatives -- like California's Homeowner's Bill of Rights, which in my opinion would never have happened without Occupy (and many other orgs too, but Occupy provided the kick in the butt)

      Like getting the NY AG to take on Wall Street thieves.  Like getting Cuomo to back down on getting rid of NY State's millionaire's tax (remember that?)

  •  Comfortable with restating ... (4+ / 0-)

    ... these traditional New Deal Democratic positions, at any rate. Actions don't necessarily fall in line with the words.

    Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

    by BruceMcF on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:38:22 AM PDT

  •  Only if we hold their feet to the fire (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laurnj, judyms9, wu ming
    Our politicians and statesmen now appear to be fully comfortable in reanimating these basic Democratic values.
    I'm all out for Obama and the Dems. this election, but don't forget Obama is the same guy thought Larry Summers was a perfectly good economic advisor and who claims the right to assinate American citizens abroad as "enemy combattants."  Mainstream politicians -- FDR included -- won't move in a progressive direction out of good will or the force of argument. They move when their arms are twisted by popular movements. Occupy represents some successful arm twisting. We need to keep it up.
  •  Before Occupy, it was all deficit, all the time. (7+ / 0-)

    Nobody in Washington or the media even mentioned jobs or inequality.

    Occupy made the 1% vs the 99% a major part of our dialog, even against the headwind of bipartisan hippie-hatred and a royalist press corps.

  •  If people want to compare the relative success (9+ / 0-)

    of the Occupy Movement to the Tea Party and say that both are "grass roots" movements, then I really don't know what  to say.  From Day 1 the Tea Party has been anything but grass roots.  Of course, they've accomplished more than the Occupiers legislatively.  The Tea Party is bought and paid for by the PTB in the GOP.  

    The Tea Partiers had funding and organization bankrolled by Dick Armey and the Koch brothers.  They were adopted by a major media outlet (Mudoch newspapers and TV).

    Occupiers were lucky to get a few pizzas brought to them.  

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

    by koosah on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:41:57 AM PDT

    •  Love your tag line and your acknowledgment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koosah

      that pizzas were a stroke of luck because I think those pizzas came from sympathizers who might not take to the streets themselves but who are with OWS in spirit.  I think this election will tell us just how many there are out there in the electosphere.  The rethugs fear the number is large, thus voter suppression.  Let's prove them correct on this one.

      Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

      by judyms9 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:40:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Occupy is hated by the republicans for same (4+ / 0-)

    reason mention of Obama as a community organizer elicits such vociferous BOOS. They don't believe in community. The meme of I got mine solely by myself is really believed by these gasbags. Hence the popularity of the ad that Obama believes business only worked if supported by government.

    I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.” - Frank Zappa

    by OHdog on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:42:21 AM PDT

  •  Strange development on this thread: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, doroma, laurnj, SoCalSal

    The people - literally the very same people - who spent 2009-2011 excoriating the President for not "using the bully pulpit" and for "accepting the austerity framing" have suddenly decided that it doesn't matter very much at all what rhetoric the President uses.

    Of course, as per the pattern, they've decided that this thing they spent so long demanding doesn't matter very much only after President Obama started to do it.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:43:03 AM PDT

    •  it doesn't matter what the rhetoric is when (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GideonAB

      there is no action to back up the rhetoric.

      It's just rhetoric.  And rhetoric is cheap.

      •  Is that what you said about austerity rhetoric? (0+ / 0-)

        Because I recall story after story about how terrible it was for Obama to be (allegedly) acceding to the austerity gospel in his rhetoric.

        How about during the debt ceiling negotiations - is this what you were saying about President Obama's rhetoric then?  "It doesn't matter what the rhetoric is when there is no action to back up the rhetoric" about, say, Social Security COLAs or entitlement cuts?

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:20:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, it was. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming

          My gripe with the austerity agenda wasn't the rhetoric---it was the reality of it. Ditto for the debt ceiling "negotiations".

          Words don't mean diddley to me.  Actions do.  And the Democratic actions, since 1979, have been to surrender to everything the goppers want.

          •  Except there was no reality to it. (0+ / 0-)

            It was all rhetoric.  No actual austerity at the federal level happened.

            There were no "actions" that the President took in regards to entitlement cuts, for instance, during the debt ceiling negotiations.  In fact, the only substantive actions he took on the issue was to specifically protect Social Security and Medicare benefits from reductions as part of the sequestration.

            So your complaint can't possibly be about "actions" or "reality."  You were complaining about rhetoric which was every bit as removed from substantive action as (you speculate) this year's campaign rhetoric will be - and yet, clearly, you responded very strongly to that rhetoric at the time, deeming it to be of the utmost importance.  So much so that you now forget that it was "just words."

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:03:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Rhetoric matters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WB Reeves

      And it's good to see the Dems pushing more progressive rhetoric.  That's the first step though.  It was frustrating to see the President and other Dems say nothing about anything except deficits and austerity.  It's better to have them acknowledge that inequality is a problem.  It crosses the thresh hold of good when they do something about it.  We can't let up just because they're talking the talk.

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

      by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:44:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think occupy even made the MSM (3+ / 0-)

    say..."what? There are dissenters? Lots of them?" But as for the Democratic Party riding the groundswell, not so much.

    I don't argue that both parties are the same, hardly. But both parties either actively or tacitly support Wall Street Banksters. The robber barons must be stopped and I don't see the democratic leadership even trying.

    -7.5 -7.28, A carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond.-Don Van Vliet

    by Blueslide on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:44:06 AM PDT

    •  and the other thing is occupy is much more (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dixiedemocrat

      than a message.  It spoke the truth.  A truth that can't be ignored and a truth which will destroy world democracy if it is not heeded.

      Unfortunately, imho, it appears its truth has so far been met by the very dysfunction it speaks of.

      “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” - Harriet Tubman

      by Publius2008 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:48:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  OWS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell, SoCalSal

    QWS has lost momentum and message by allowing repugs to shove them off to the side, where their message has been muted. If they want to rejuvinate themselves, they shud be marching on Ohio's, Pennsylvania's and other statehouses, to draw world attention to the repugs plan to rig the election.

    Make this The American November!

  •  This democrats rubber stamped the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judyms9

    previous administrations polices. They passed TARP and extended the expiring Bush Tax cuts. I would also say the that the Payroll tax cuts is a mis-step that feeds right into Norquist's Starve the Beast mind set.

  •  Occupy? (0+ / 0-)

    Relevant?  Okay.

  •  As soon as the RW media started calling the (6+ / 0-)

    Occupiers smelly low-life slackers I knew they were making a difference and that they were on the right track.  That's when I joined up.

    Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

    by judyms9 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:52:03 AM PDT

  •  amazing that the Dems want to claim Occupy now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judyms9, Nada Lemming

    after several dozen Democratic mayors in major cities crushed Occupy out of existence (coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security under a Democratic administration).

    I plan on being at the Republican convention in Tampa.  I also plan on being at the Democratic convention in Raleigh.   Both are owned by Wall Street, and both are Occupy's targets.

  •  Two points (7+ / 0-)

    First, saying, as Armando does in a comment, that Occupy has won the narrative because politicians are mouthing its talking points is like someone in the late 1960s saying that hippies had won the narrative because the set of Laugh In contained a lot of psychedelic design elements.

    Occupy has been co-opted, much as nearly all of the so-called net roots, including this website, have been co-opted. I foresee Markos' third book: "How Occupy Crashed the Gate."

    Second, as evidence for the assertion I made in the previous paragraph, I submit two things.

    One is Armando's penultimate statement in this post: "Our politicians and statesmen now appear to be fully comfortable in reanimating these basic Democratic values." By "these basic Democratic values," Armando means the values of Franklin Roosevelt.

    Two, this post by Digby in which she quotes an article from The New York Times that says Obama "particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit."

    I guess there's no better way to reanimate basic Democratic values than by showing your willingness to unnecessarily slash two of the greatest programs enacted by the Democratic Party in the 20th century.

    •  It would be as if Nixon (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      laurnj, AoT

      adopted an anti-war position.

      The Laugh In reference would as if say, Jon Stewart adopted some Occupy motif.

      Your analogy lack logical coherence to me.

      As for digby's point, does she and you think Obama is clamoring for credit on cutting Medicare? That is delusional form the both of you.

      I'm fine with being wary, but that is ridiculous.

      •  delusional? (0+ / 0-)

        It's a quote from the president himself.  You should get out of your bubble more.  

        ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

        by Nada Lemming on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:12:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair (0+ / 0-)

        Stewart was using up-twinkles for a while there.  Does that count? ;)

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

        by AoT on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 12:49:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's just the beginning (5+ / 0-)

    Occupy is still in an infancy stage.  This election, while some think it is the be all and end all, won't have much impact on Occupy one way or another, imho.  

    Democrats are not the only ones who have adopted the Occupy messaging but neither major candidate has any policies that address the core issues that Occupy is protesting.  Case in point, the federal regulators just bowed to Goldman Sachs and publicly announced that there will be no indictments.  Is this how an "Occupy candidate" handles things?  

    The banks, worldwide, are on the brink of crashing the economy once again because nothing was done to address the problem last time around.  Instead they were coddled and bailed out and millions of people are losing their homes.

    The banks and mortgage companies and servicers just got a really sweet settlement from this administration and the fraud continues, day after day.  Is this how an "Occupy candidate" would handle things?

    Rather than getting the money out of politics, and absurd amount of money is driving this 2012 election.  

    FDR? You've got to be kidding me.   The Democratic leadership is currently planning to go after Social Security!  And they are serious and have spent years working with the likes of Pete Peterson whose lifelong goal has  been to cut "entitlements".  They are out there touting the Simpson-Bowles plan, the catfood commission.   They are afraid to do it before the 2012 election but once those ballots are counted they will be off and running in the lame duck Congress and they are not even trying to hide it.

    Talk - the Democrats and the Republicans are both using the Occupy message but it is all talk.  It is talk that is meant to fool the people and their actions do not in any way match their rhetoric.  


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:58:02 AM PDT

    •  Talk is where politics starts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Militarytracy

      I'm not sure what your objection is. Would you rather there NOT be "talk?"

      I do not understand the position some of you are taking. Indeed, I find it utterly bizarre.

      Are you intent on declaring Occupy a failure?

      •  Absolutely not (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, Nada Lemming

        I am not declaring Occupy a failure.  I am objecting to your assertion that Obama is the Occupy candidate and your implication that there is any connection between the populist rhetoric and the actions we have seen and continue to see to this very day.

        I find it hard to believe that the concept of telling people what they want to hear, of adopting good messaging while having no intention of following through on it (and instead intending to push Simpson-Bowles through asap after the election for one example) is something that you find to be bizarre.  I don't generally find you to be a disingenuous person, the opposite in fact, but I think you are playing here.  I think you do get what we are saying.

        Occupy has been successful at bringing some key issues back into the forefront and forcing Democrats to at least pretend that they have any intention of addressing those issues.  But the Dems have signalled what they really intend to DO regardless of what Occupy messaging they incorporate into their campaign marketing.  Dodd-Frank is still not implemented.  Look at the mortgage settlement.  What happened to the Volcker rule?  I mean, I could put out  many more examples of the rhetoric not matching the actions and intentions, yes intentions, because they have been telling us what they intend to do too.

        It's only the beginning though for Occupy -- this is only a start and the D response to Occupy right now is an attempt to keep the Democratic base somewhat happy so that turnout will not be a disaster.  I mean come on, it's election season. The populist rhetoric is turned on for the campaign speeeches and off again like a switch the minute that election is over.  If the issues are not addressed for real, the protests will grow, and just because it's not in the news or because there aren't huge marches every day does not mean that this movement is dead.  

        Anyway, all the same problems are still there and if anything they are worse than ever.   The protest movement might ebb and flow and there has been some success but it is only the beginning if the real issues are not addressed.  Yes, Occupy has been a success but this is not a project that is now over and gets a final grade.  It is a start.  And the movement has not convinced the powers that be that they need to really change things, apparently.  It has only convinced them to adopt some of the rhetoric, clamp down further on their secrecy policies, privatize a lot of their military activity and fudge numbers and keep the neverending wars out of the public eye, throw some British bankers out there as scapegoats for an election season spectacle while still protecting the big five banks here and others, etc.  

        They have not convinced many of our elected officials that they need to change the status quo or that they will lose their positions of power if they don't change their ways or that they have to throw off their owners who provide the campaign money.  So there is a lot more work to do.  But they did break through the propaganda, brought the issue of the bankers back to the forefront when it looked like everyone in Washington had forgotten all about the crash.  They made it uncomfortable for some politicians who were not and still are not listening at all.  Now they are listening, but their response has been to find a way to more cleverly say one thing while doing another.  So far.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:42:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  US Income Tax History From Wikipedia (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Odysseus, Nada Lemming

    First proposed in 1812, taxing US income earners took almost 100 years to be fully implemented. Initially, these were war time proposals to fund war efforts, then they became peace time proposals to replace high tariffs and expand trade.

    Here's a blurb from wikipedia:

    In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10 million 2007 dollars).
    During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000 ($16 million 2007 dollars).
    Under Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, top tax rates were reduced in 1921, 1924, 1926, and 1928. Mellon argued that lower rates would spur economic growth.[31] By 1928, the top rate was scaled down to 24% and the income threshold for paying this rate fell to $100,000 ($1 million 2007 dollars).
    During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.
    Since 1964, the threshold for paying top income tax rate has generally been between $200,000 and $400,000. The one exception is the period from 1982–1992 when the top income tax brackets were removed and incomes above around $100,000 (varies by year) paid the top rate. From 1981 until 1986 the top marginal rate was lowered to 50%. From 1988–1990, the threshold for paying the top rate was even lower, with incomes above $29,750 to $32,450 ($51,000 in 2007 dollars) paying the top rate of 28% in those years.[32]

    Top marginal income tax rates from 1913 to 2011.
    Top tax rates were increased in 1992 and 1994, culminating in a 39.6% top individual rate applicable to all classes of income.
    Top individual tax rates were lowered in 2004 to 35% and tax rates on dividends and capital gains lowered to 15%, with the Bush administration claiming lower rates would spur economic growth

    So we have had 2 wars ongoing for nearly a decade and no added taxes. This defies logic and history.

    You could be listening to Netroots Radio. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

    by yuriwho on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:00:27 AM PDT

  •  This is very funny to me. (0+ / 0-)

    People of faith are criticized for their good moral conduct when it is motivated purely by the fear of punishment, yet we laud our politicians for the same thing.

    Our politicians and statesmen now appear to be fully comfortable in reanimating these basic Democratic values.

    Occupy helped make that happen.

    "Help me to be, to think, to act what is right because it is right; make me truthful, honest, and honorable in all things; make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and honor and without thought of reward to me." [Robert E. Lee]

    by SpamNunn on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:02:30 AM PDT

      •  You should do the right thing because it's right, (0+ / 0-)

        not because you are afraid you will be punished (by the electorate, or God) if you don't.  

        I just find it funny that politicians get a pass when it is clear that, most of the time, we have to force them into doing the right thing.  All of Wall Street's money won't help you if you can't win the Election.

        "Help me to be, to think, to act what is right because it is right; make me truthful, honest, and honorable in all things; make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and honor and without thought of reward to me." [Robert E. Lee]

        by SpamNunn on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:22:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (0+ / 0-)

          You can go your own way on that one.

          Pols are pols and do what they do.

          •  More the shame, then. (0+ / 0-)

            "Help me to be, to think, to act what is right because it is right; make me truthful, honest, and honorable in all things; make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and honor and without thought of reward to me." [Robert E. Lee]

            by SpamNunn on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:30:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  life is what it is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          judyms9
          I just find it funny that politicians get a pass when it is clear that, most of the time, we have to force them into doing the right thing
          This has been true since a group of plain ole ordinary people shot at British soldiers in Lexington and forced the vaccilating politicians to pick a side.  (shrug)
          All of Wall Street's money won't help you if you can't win the Election.
          True---but all of Wall Street's money can certainly help you WIN the election.  Which is why both parties scramble madly for it.
    •  people of faith aren't criticized for their good (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      One Opinion

      moral conduct, so much as their hypocrisy, and willingness to use their faith as a fig leaf to cover up grossly immoral behavior.

      people with good moral conduct generally don't come in for much criticism at all. sanctimonious hypocrites, yes, but the well-behaved ones not inflicting themselves upon others tend to get left alone.

  •  Michael Lind made a good point (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    louisev, Panbanisha, judyms9

    He said that, basically, Occupy got to occupy (pardon the pun) the far left end of the political spectrum, allowing Obama to safely move to the left without seeming like an extremist.

    Basically for the Democrats to function effectively as a left-of-center political party, there needs to be something further to the left.  The New Dealers had the old-line Communists and Socialists to serve as a foil; part of the problem after the 1980s was that New Deal liberals came to be seen as the new "far left."

    28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:10:17 AM PDT

  •  Excellent diary and a great way of showing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Broke And Unemployed

    that Occupy was not done in vain.  One should never regret doing the right thing and the right thing is to lift our brothers up or lend a hand or fluff the wings of fellow earth angels if that be the case.

    We unite to demonstrate that each and every one of us counts in life.  We unite to pave the way.  We unite to save one another.  We unite in hopes that our children and grandchildren will see, it was not done in vain!

    Thanks for expressing this in such a way to make us feel like the proud Democrats that we are.

  •  Electoral Activism (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure I agree that "the blogs like Daily Kos have provided electoral activism."

    I don't want to denigrate what goes on here; it's important.  But we should be clear about what electoral activism is.  It means going out and knocking on doors, staffing phone banks, registering voters and contributing money.  

    There have been calls here for these things to happen.  People have heard about opportunities to do these things here. ActBlue has brought in money for  progressive pols.

    But activists are activated by organizers, and organizing has traditionally been done by the the parties, the unions, environmental groups, various other NGOs and motivated individuals.  Blogs like Daily Kos have helped these groups get the message out, but let's be clear -- OFA, the unions and other NGOs have done most of the actual work in activating electoral activism.

    I say this to reemphasize what most of us here already know and which kos has told us many times -- there is a function to blogging, but when an election is at stake, we also need to brush the Cheetos crumbs off our pajamas, climb out of our parents' basements, put on some real clothes and get out there and knock on doors.  Extra points to those who organize their friends and family to do the same.

    In the time leading up to the election, I plan to turn my law office over to crews of people my domestic partner will organize.  Volunteers will come in during the evening and staff the phones, making calls from lists supplied by the campaign.

    I myself also plan to make the pilgrimage again to Nevada to go door to door.  God bless the OFA organizers who will be making sure the offices are staffed, route assignments are compiled with live names of Obama supporters who have yet to vote, and who keep the office supplied with Cheetos -- comfort food for those of us bloggers who feel a little out of our element.

    And yes, major kudos to Ministry of Truth and all of the people who helped organize the Occupy movement that helped make Democratic poobahs understand early that this was to be a base election.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:13:29 AM PDT

    •  On Daily Kos (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy

      You are wrong. You do not understand online activism or think it is meaningless.

      But that is your problem, not Daily Kos'.

      Your comment is ridiculous on that point imo.

    •  You are talking about push activism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9

      Dkos is pull activism.

      You aren't asked to DITTO, you are asked to open your mind and learn.

      The comments are as important as the diaries.  If you don't get that, you don't get Dkos.

      . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

      by 88kathy on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:48:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  not Occupied Wall Street, it's Occupied USA (0+ / 0-)

    because we're occupied by the top 1% of the top 1%

    80 % of success is showing up

    Corporate is not the solution to our problem

    Corporate is the problem

    by Churchill on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:21:48 AM PDT

  •  O should read FDR's speech, and MEAN IT (0+ / 0-)

    80 % of success is showing up

    Corporate is not the solution to our problem

    Corporate is the problem

    by Churchill on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:27:23 AM PDT

  •  I am with Armando (5+ / 0-)


    Roll back the calendar to 18 months or so ago and Daily Kos was full of people gnashing their teeth and furious with Obama for his compromises and the budget brinksmanship and 24-hour new cycle drumming on the deficit, deficit, deficit, and that was the public narrative.  And for months - MONTHS, whether you realize this or not, Occupy Wall Street and the other Occupy movements - around the globe I might add, some of them larger than the one in NYC (check out Rome and Berlin for examples) shook up the very narrative that had prevented open debate of how to resolve the Great Recession, and focused upon the real causes of the 2008 crisis, like breaking open a solid-looking tree and finding it full of termites.  The termites have been out in the open ever since, and the political narrative has changed so much that leading up to the 2012 election, Obama has a commanding lead and the main argument against Romney as a candidate is his millionaire story - two years ago, that would have been his biggest asset.  You can go back and look at diaries from 18 months ago if you don't believe me - the change in focus, the change in narrative, is very much reflected in DKOS and in the mainstream media, accompanied and reinforced by the change in public opinion toward GLBT civil rights.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:44:11 AM PDT

  •  So here's the thing... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judyms9, Militarytracy

    The political persuasions of the Occupy Movement don't adequately define the movement. The issues define the movement and there is no one issue. There is reasonable justification for all of us to be in the street.

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 09:46:19 AM PDT

    •  Yes, folks, be in the street or you'll live on the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Just Bob, Nada Lemming

      street.  The 1% has not yet finished with you until you've scavenged every returnable can and bottle and handed over your bottle return receipt to them as tribute to their feudal magnificence.  

      Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

      by judyms9 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 10:07:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The polling didn't change (0+ / 0-)

    “The biggest thing that changed was there was a major shift in the overall environment when it comes to the tax debate,” the Democratic aide said, crediting the Occupy Wall Street movement for helping make the wealth disparity a national issue. “People increasingly think the system is rigged to benefit those at the top.”

    In fact that "increasingly" is nonsense.  The vast majority of US adult respondents have long said to Gallup in poll after poll that they think the rich and businesses pay less than their fair share of taxes.  The polls haven't shifted recently.

    Also on every other poll for, when given a chance, a large majority of respondents support higher taxes on rich people. What to do about the social security shortfall this no that  no other thing no ohhh raise ceiling why yessss (over 60%).  Paying for the ACA cut the Medicare budget (no) mandate (no) tax cadillac health plans (no) surtax on the rich ... why yesss.

    The mystery is why the Democrats took so long to accept the reality that the way to win was to propose higher taxes on the rich.  My guess is that it was campaign fund raising first, then greasing the revolving door and only a little bit fear of villager pundit disapproval.

  •  I'd like to see Occupy shadow Paul Ryan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Militarytracy

    There should be protest everywhere he goes. The media has taken the opportunity to return to the pre-Occupy narrative.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:28:36 AM PDT

    •  I'll be with Occupy at the Democratic Convention (0+ / 0-)

      In my view, demonstrating against Repugs doesn't accomplish anything for Occupy.  everyone already knows that we hate Repugs and they hate us.  We gain nothing there.  

      But we need to make it clear to everyone that the Democratic Party is not on our side either, and Wall Street owns the Dem party's balls just as it does the Repugs. That's why it is more important for us to be in Raleigh than in Tampa.

      The Dems in Raleigh will have a choice to make, as we rally outside the, uh, "Bank of America Stadium".  They can either club us and pepper-spray us, or they can invite us in.

      I have no doubt which choice they will make. And that will end all this silly "the Occupy President is on your side !!!" talk.

  •  So the Democrats now *talk* a good fight.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nada Lemming

    let us see what they do to fight it before putting away the Occupy signs.

    I hope you're right, but don't be too optimistic too soon.

  •  "This is why we are Democrats" -- BULLSHIT! (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, the Republicans are far worse, but the Democrats are also leading us to a global corporate dictatorship only at a slower pace.

    We saw bipartisan support for all the police-state laws (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006, NDAA), government wiretapping, and massive citizen databases.

    We saw bipartisan support for all the "free-trade" laws that export American jobs to low-wage countries, and for the new TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) which is "NAFTA on steroids".

    We saw bipartisan support for denying Americans single-payer health care, which every other civilized country has.

    We saw bipartisan support for the bank bailouts, but none for homeowner bailouts.  And not a single bankster has been charged with a crime after they crashed our economy!

    There's bipartisan agreement to do nothing about homelessness.

    There's bipartisan support for force-feeding us unlabeled genetically-modified frankenfoods.

    There's bipartisan support for the war on whistleblowers exposing government corruption, and for the war on marijuana users.

    There's bipartisan support for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (although the Democrats like to pose as defending these programs).

    There's bipartisan agreement to not investigate the evidence our elections are being rigged by the unverifiable, easily-hacked, touchscreen voting machines.

    There's bipartisan support for building new nuclear power plants.

    Q: Why do the Democrats feel they can get away with this crap? A: Because of dupes who give this other corporate-funded party their unconditional support.

    Because of these dupes, the Democrats know they can get away with any sellout to the 1%, the dupes will still vote for them!

    The Green Party is the non-corporate alternative; they don't accept corporate money and they represent the 99%.

    Your Green vote sends the Democrats a message that selling out citizens will cost them votes. And it's a message the Democrats sorely need.

    VOTE GREEN 2012!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site