Obama Press Secretary Questioned On Occupy Wall Street

Via Greg Sargent, who writes:

The story here is not what the White House said but that it was asked to weigh in on the protests at all ó another sign of the remarkable speed with which it has grown from a crowd chanting at police two weeks ago. As for the substance of the White House response, it would have been a mistake for it to go any further than it did here ó registering an understanding of economic frustration. Because if thereís one thing thatís growing clearer by the hour, itís that this is an entirely organic effort, one thatís about nobody but the protestors themselves.

I think Greg misses an important point - the White House's cozy relationship with Wall Street is part of what is being protested. Hard to see an Administration that has Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary being in tune with a protest against Wall Street. BTW, as long as offering "an agenda" to Occupy Wall Street seems to be the latest rage, here's my contribution - demand the firing of Tim Geithner.

< The Racial Demands Of The GOP | Occupy Treasury: HAMP'd >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You know, I had a feeling from the start (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:22:25 AM EST
    That the people who started this movement are a lot smarter than the smug detractors imagine. You know, "dumb...like foxes"

    They remind me of the lone package sitting atop a bench. It just sits there, unattended, unclaimed. One person stops, and looks. Then another, and another, and pretty soon you have a growing, buzzing mob.

    By not outlining a list of demands, but remaining an opaque palette they seem to have attracted quite a following, not unlike bees to honey.

    This smells of viral to me.

    I hope so... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:37:23 AM EST
    and good point about a lack of a cohesive list of demands being potentially brilliant strategy.  

    Make the bastards guess what the people want and give out bones accordingly, and when the protestors still won't go home, give out more bones.  A list of demands would likely sell the growing protest movement short...this way they can shoot for the moon, provided the state doesn't go all Tiananmen Square on 'em, which could still happen I'm afraid.  As the movement and media coverage grows, a hardline crackdown becomes more likely, its not like the Bill of Rights is valid or anything.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    The list of grievances is so long, the damage so widespread, by narrowing it down to 5-10 "demands" would just place a self induced limit to the cry-out.

    Let it be like Karaoke  night. Everybody come, everybody sing your own song in your own way, everybody has their own story of abuse.

    Real grass roots don't make "lists." a little air, a little water, and let it grow, and grow, and grow.


    Provided the armed security wing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    of the true ownership society doesn't commit a human rights disaster, we might well be  on our way to something special.

    Thanks for asking about moms, no crisis or anything, just a dream to let her retire before 65 with health coverage...the answer we're looking for may be getting the whole family down to the occupation zone!


    I haven't heard... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:51:18 PM EST
    ... did you make it down there this past weekend?

    I'm lame... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:57:32 PM EST
    see here.  I will get down there, contemplating a little hooky and going tomorrow.

    Oh honey (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    you were lame!!  LOL

    No worries, we've all had those days.  (And if you haven't you are in no position to judge!)


    Big time lame... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    I am the poster boy of the piker-dom our government and corporate adversaries bank on...but if you're gonna be part of the problem, at least have a good time doing it:)

    real quick (none / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    I'll put some of my ideas together and send them to you.

    That's it, no more stealng Jeralyn's bandwidth.


    If you can't define what you want (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    fixed then you will get nothing fixed.

    If you just want to take down the system, that's a different story.

    At that point, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it" applies.


    And that, my friends... (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:52:44 PM EST
    is how OWS will sneak up on the American public.  While some are making judgements, more and more are getting curious.  And finding that a voice will do aa world of for what ails 'em.

    Thank you for your demonstration.

    I have no idea where this will end.  But I think the ride is only beginning.


    Supposed to be a rally here in DC (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:56:43 PM EST
    On Thursday.  Literally outside my window.  I can't wait to see it unfold and maybe wander down on my lunch break.

    The Times reported (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    20 "Copy Cat" demonstrations have been logged

    I feel lghtheaded.

    Reminds me of that line at the end of "Shawshank Redemption" about "Hope."

    I Hope this is it....the Beginning.


    You what's funny (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    is that I watched "Shawshank Redemption" last week on On Demand.  Hadn't seen it in years, and it's such a good movie.  

    So is this line that you meant?

    Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.

    you nailed it! (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:43:37 PM EST

    make that (none / 0) (#50)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    "And finding that a voice will do a world of good for what ails 'em".  

    And that's the only error I'm going to correct.


    So you agree (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    that the goal of those organizing/controlling is anarchy, not solutions.



    Jim, you should have cocktails with ABG (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:30:57 PM EST
    You guys would have a great time talking past each other.

    hed (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:06:58 PM EST

    That's a good'un.


    "I have no idea where this will end." (none / 0) (#141)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:25:22 AM EST
    Perfect! And, that's exactly where we should be as this movement continues to develop.

    "The demands!" "Where are the demands?"


    Oh, FYI, Professor Warren has now moved ahead in the polls.

    Jeesh, a Democrat here, a Democrat there, and like Freddy Kruger fail, maybe they're not all dead after all.

    I wonder if the buzz from the Park has begun to wake up some formerly dormant D's. If the OWS kids were looking for some fresh air, Ms Warren may just have provided some to them.

    "The Demands! We must have demands!"



    Sometimes, it starts not with what (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:12:08 PM EST
    people want, but with what and how they feel, coupled with a great need to be seen and heard; these occupations are giving people that opportunity.  

    Look at the placards they carry or wear, read what they say: there's truth there.  Each person's truth.  Each person who's been laid off and can't find work, who was lied to about the terms of the loans they took out, who's trying to figure out how they will ever be able to support themselves in their old age.  Each person who has questions about Endless War, about the illegal invasion of their privacy, about the authoritarian hand that is choking the life out of the democracy.

    People are looking away from their computers and blackberries and smart phones and TVs and looking to places like Wall Street and Washington and seats of power all over the country for accountability.

    If there were any lessons to be taken here from the Arab Spring, it's that all peoples have a need to be heard, to feel they matter; that need is no less great just because this is America.  In fact, I think it's long past time for this country's commitment to freedom - of all kinds - to be tested.


    Careful Jim (none / 0) (#62)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    you sound like a candidate to be included in the first "round up."

    If you can't even acknowledge the problem....YOU'RE the problem.


    Heh (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    Guess they'll have to make me give up my guns and religion..

    Look, I have noted the problems and made specific suggestions on healthcare and on the economy.

    These folks just seem to be chronic complainers with no specific complaints and no suggestions on how to fix them.


    Chronic complainers (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:08:06 PM EST
    I don't think you'd classify the Tea Party as such.  THEY have solutions?  They don't even understand who the hell to rail against.  And the Koch Bros. are financing them.  

    I knew 20+ years ago our "system" was not all that, when I was working manual labor, 40+ hours a week, sweating and exhausted when I got home to try to write, and I was NEVER, even living very low on the hog, able to have any financial security at all.  None.  I was always paycheck to paycheck, barely, and an emergency away from disaster.  I remember thinking, if people working hard as hell can't even be paid enough to cover living expenses and have a little left over, then what the hell are we all doing?

    BTW, emailed Jeff last weekend, haven't heard back, so I'm a little concerned, you heard from him at all?



    Why didn't I think of that before (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    reading you suggesting it?  I guess I'm just excited that finally today MSM is reporting that some Unions have joined/support the protest.  Victoria Sobel, a face I've seen in some of the earliest videos, is on MSNBC as an "organizer" announcing a march time tomorrow and Unions coming out to join them.

    It isn't as if we don't have some memos making it clear that Tim Geithner was insubordinate to the orders his President gave him....after a year of analysis of meetings and then things NOT DONE and twisting in the wind waiting to be "relitigated" in new discussions when the decisions had already been made and orders given.  If General McChrystal needed firing, certainly Tim Geithner does as well.

    If Tim is fired, what will that do to the confidence fairy and the stock market?  Is that why he in all of his insubordinate glory is still sitting in a White House provided office?  If the stock market crashes again is he fired five minutes later finally?

    What Head of Treasury (none / 0) (#5)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    Wasn't connected to Wall Street or the Fortune 500 before assuming the position.

    Discussion about Geithner occur as if there was a time when Goldman Sachs, Alocoa and World Bank leaders weren't the types who received the job?

    Do we really think that if Geithner left tomorrow, he'd be replaced with someone with no history or connection with any investment bank, fortune 100 company or the global financial institution's market?

    That's not the way the position has historically been staffed and to do so would be extremely difficult for anyone.

    The answer, instead, is not to demand someone who has never worked for Goldman, but to find someone who has the correct mindset coming in.


    My demands are about Geithner (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    not Goldman.

    He is an incompetent.


    Five former Treasury Secretaries (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:45:20 AM EST
    Support and supported during the fight for legislation something called the Volcker rule that Tim Geithner breaks and destroys gleefully.  Go ahead and pull that trigger again ABG

    I don't understand what trigger I am pulling (none / 0) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    I wish we had the Volcker rule.  I also wish marijuana was legal and we dropped the emargo against Cuba.

    There are many things the administration has done that I hate.


    Which was more likely to happen? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:27:36 PM EST
    The legalization of marijuana or the implementation of the Volcker Rule?

    Your comparisons are laughably facile.  If you don't give a sh*t about financial reform, just say so.


    To be honest (none / 0) (#91)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    The legalization of marijuana would be one of the single biggest instant injections of capital into our economy that could be accomplished with no additional funds.

    But that wasn't the point.  The point is that making arguments about overall success based on one piece of legislation is silly.


    The Volcker rule is mentioned (none / 0) (#108)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:40:41 PM EST
    because it was an aspect of the financial reform package that promised some actual change to the financial system, as opposed to a more "watchful" eye (your regulator may vary).  It was on the table and people like Geithner didn't like it.  When was marijuana legalization every on the table?  Comparing the two makes no sense.

    It's not even the same as healthcare reform, where you can look at the ACA, say it is imperfect, but it does at least accomplish the goal of expanding coverage.  At least there's some tangible human good there.  If financial reform does not work, all we get is disaster.  It clearly hasn't answered all the questions about our financial system.


    Bad example then (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:48:18 PM EST

    I can't decide if you continuously (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    shoot yourself in the foot or the face all the time.

    we have one (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    it just isn't implemented.

    ABG (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    I don't think your comment responds to the concerns in MT's comment.  Complaints about Geithner are not necessarily applicable to Wall Streeters as a whole.  There are people who have been connected to Wall St and who advise(d) Obama who would be much better Treasury secretaries.  There is a whole mindset Geithner has/had about confidence that not every economist on Obama's side shared.  And it's hard to see that Geithner's mindset has really paid off, with Wall St and Main St still on radically separate courses.

    Wall Street and Main Street (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:29:16 PM EST
    Actually aren't on radically different courses. It depends on the time frame you are looking at.  Over any random 6 month period? Yes. The S&P today is at almost exactly the same place that it was in Fall 2008.

    The market has done better than the employment numbers but they are not as unlinked as you are asserting.

    Bottom line for me is that nothing done in the US matters if the EU does not bail out Greece and a few other countries.

    The whole deck of cards is going to fall and we are back in 2008 again.  I've been saying this since January and it's happening.


    You are a funny, funny person (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    Of course, it's in an "eye-rolling" kind of way...

    I mean seriously, you try to change the conversation in such an obvious way that it's tres amusing when it isn't ridiculously annoying.  Greece, EU, the S&P... you're sounding rather desperate here; throwing out topics like monkeys throw feces -- hoping something will stick.

    Face it.  That's not what it's all about.  And you're not going to swing the issue.  No matter how much foam is dribbling down your chin.

    Although you are very, very skilled at high-jacking a thread.  Not an accomplishment worth bragging rights, though, IMO.


    Of course they are (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:29:23 PM EST
    Wall St is back to making big profits.  How about Main St?

    does this guy count? (none / 0) (#35)
    by the capstan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:20:54 PM EST
    Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

    He came from the farm bureau, I believe.


    As I understand it, the reason there (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:12:23 PM EST
    have been no demands is because making them would concede that all of the power lies in "them" and not us.  When you make demands, it allows the other side to simply say, "no," and perpetuates the dynamic; being present, occupying space, refusing to remain unseen is unnerving - and empowering.

    I'm sure there was a sense that this disorganized group of people would disband in short order - because how on earth can something thrive without structure?  But the thing is that there is more empowerment in keeping it very organic, allowing it to grow and be shaped by those who are participating in it, than there is in creating something that also has its own power structure, that decides what it is that is being protested, who can speak for the group, etc.  

    This thing is the stuff of revolutions, I think.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:48:42 PM EST
    This thing is the stuff of revolutions, I think.
    per my previous comment, the Chinese sure thought so.  And apparently they still think so since information about the events of 1989 are still proscribed in China.

    These are a few days old, but did you see this with (among other things) a description of how they were/are planning to hammer out a platform?  Having been on a platform committee, I have this to say.  Genius.  Organic and genius.

    Via the always wonderful Avedon Carol.


    Wow, another Sideshow fan (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    I can come out of the closet now, and won't have to read her blog with a flashlight under the covers any more.

    The 'No Demands' is Turning Out to be... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:37:38 PM EST
     ...genius, because everyone has a different angle, my theory is they are protesting CorpAmerica in general, and since Wall Street is the epicenter, it's the best place to start.

    But each person's own reasoning works, whatever you think, or more likely want, is what it is.  Making it a protest no one can really rally against or more likely, make up a bunch of BS facts to squelch it.

    Like inkblots, whatever you think it is, is what it is, and that is fricken genius IMO.

    It is a smart strategy, (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    in my view, to keep it organic at this point.  The coalescence of concerns is important and the criticisms of them  are more difficult.  Specific "demands" or vilifying named individuals (no matter how deserving) would only rally supporters.  Keep them guessing, and if a rallying cry is desired it  should be kept  apple pie-ish.  Say, "Proponents of the American Dream".  After all, we elect public officials on such slogans as "compassionate conservative," "yes we can," and "hope and change."

    We are ALL Americans (none / 0) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    Every Single One Of Us

    We Demand?....... Dignity & Respect

    It is Our Right

    You Stole It from Us

    We Want It Back!

    If you give us "Just Words?"

    Like Pinocheo's Nose

    Watch Us Grow, and GRow, and GROw, and GROW!

    'bout covers it


    Yeah, now you're getting it. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    I hope you all saw that beautiful picture of, I think it was 700, airline pilots, all lined up and looking so spiffy, carrying placards with their specific grievances. Fantastic!  (I'd like to see the cops mace them!)

    Next, there'll be one union/organization after another, with their grievances.

    And on, and on

    Just beautiful.

    No I haven't seen it/them (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    I'll have to go looking later...

    I'll get you a link (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    Here ya go (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    just scroll down, 2'nd picture



    Thanks (none / 0) (#78)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    Great photograph.  But did you read the commentary?  They act as though the pilots showed up there all on their lonesome in spite of OWS, instead of because of:

    That was a group of several hundred pilots who went to Wall Street on Tuesday to stage their own separate protest against their management. It elicited mostly admiration, nothing like the criticism that has been visited upon the Occupy Wall Street protestors, who are involved in a larger, more disparate and less tidy affair.

    All they've got, really, is misdirection and a prayer that we won't notice what they're doing.

    Rather like ABG, actually.


    Yes, I guess we are (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    supposed to believe that the pilots just happen to go to Wall Street for their own separate protest--coincidenza!  And, the merits and the validity of a protest are, apparently, a function of the clothing. The better the clothes, the neater the uniform, the greater the value.  Indeed, interviews seem to spend as much time on the protesters wardrobe as they do on what they say.  In todays NYT business pages,, I started to think that Andrew Ross Sorkin left his field and became a fashion reporter.  Now, if the Occupy Wall Streeters would just spruce up like those Tea Party guys and dolls did at their rallies, rugged attire complete with their six shooters.   I wonder how that would travel?

    They need to be fat, lazy and ignorant (none / 0) (#117)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:10:37 PM EST
    Then they'll get some attention, as that is the way the powers that be prefer their "rebels."  I actually had to bite my lip a few weeks ago when, on a family vacation, I heard three older (and, yes, fatter) TPs from Arizona bragging giddily about how no Mexicans are gonna get good treatment, we just throw them in a cage, maybe give them some bread, you ain't comin' here to make no babies, that ain't what the founders intended.  Now, my instinct was to inform the employees in the place loudly (most were Hispanic, I noticed) about the conversation taking place ("Racist hogs in need of assistance in Menswear!  Racist hogs in need of assistance in menswear!") AND to get up in their faces and publicly humiliate them.  But, with mom-in-law in tow, and my son with us, I simply shook my head and walked away.  

    Never again.


    I used to do that (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:53:13 PM EST
    get in their faces.

    now, I just can't stand back and watch a parent smacking a young child around in a grocery store.


    There is no logical way (none / 0) (#3)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    That this administration, or any administration, could respond in absolute support of the protests.

    Behind the scenes, the protests surely help Obama's position politically and from a policy perspective, but no administration can come out in support of a movement with no leader, no determined set of goals and no way of addressing an issue if something goes tragically wrong.

    All they could do is what they have done: speak to the frustration.

    My hope is that the movement slowly morphs into a set of goals that Obama and the dems can use to push back against the GOP.

    If this is the creation of the left's Tea Party (and I think it is) then the end result will be to strengthen the liberal position and give Obama leverage as he tries to tack left in the face of hostage taking opposition.

    Oy (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    How big does a protest have to get before ummmm an administration can support a protest?

    And I'm sorry, but people are very very upset and that is how this protest has so easily gone viral and continues to grow.  Not addressing these people will not help his position politically.  This protest doesn't even need a defined leader and it just keeps growing.  Why is that?  It is because we have all had it with the oligarchy that this President has also empowered.  He is in trouble too for some of this and everybody is so mad they don't need a "leader".  Our President has been a part of the problem though that has continued to destroy our economy and our jobs.  He continues to make the wrong choices economically time and time again.  Until that changes he's in trouble.


    The administration (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    can't support the protest.  Even if they won't say so publicly, someone there knows that they are seen as part of the problem.  

    On the other hand, actually supporting them could possibly have the effect of weakening them.  Thankfully the administration is too proud and too arrogant to do so.


    And they Can't Take WS Money and Support... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:08:01 PM EST
     ... the protesters.  I am pretty sure I know which one is more important to Obama and his re-election campaign and it ain't sign holders.

    If Obama did one right thing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    The dynamics of the protest would begin to change.  As long as his position is to ignore their needs and the needs of the real economy and not the fairy dust economy...he has a growing problem on his hands.

    He has been (none / 0) (#111)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:50:29 PM EST
    Talking for weeks about the needs of these folks and instead of supporting him, many on our side have been criticizing. He can't even get the dem senate to sign onto a plan everyone thinks will work. That's what we should be protesting.  

    Well, go protest it then (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:53:51 PM EST
    I don't think protests are very effective (none / 0) (#140)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    at changing policy. I was just pointing out the correct option yearning to get their protest on.

    Surprise, surprise (none / 0) (#148)
    by sj on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    Your comment:
    That's what we should be protesting.  

    If you're not going to do it yourself, you have a lot of nerve declaring what anyone should be protesting.  Moreover, you have a lot of nerve claiming any sort of "we" kinship.    But that's exactly the sort of kinship you gratuitously claim when you speak of "we liberals".

    "The correct option", indeed.  Picture a virtual finger thump to the back of your head, you arrogant, foolish man.


    He has fricken backdoored (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 02:24:05 PM EST
    everyone how many times now? And you are really going to sit here and whine when he seems to be interested in doing something for someone other than himself and we feel apprehensive and maybe even a little scared of him and his proposition at first?  Are you nuts?

    I'm sorry, but I need to know that he really means it this time and he isn't just going to screw me over again like he did when it was time to regulate banks and Wall Street, a public option, keeping Tim Geithner on and allowing Larry Summers to burn the rest of the economy down on my dime, threatening cuts to Social Security and Medicare every other day after he allowed idiots to burn the economy to the ground.

    Sorry ABG but I'm going to have to see some God Damn sweat on Mr. Obama's part before I get worked up about anything that he is doing or proposing.  He's a player and he's played me one too many times.


    Like OMGawd... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    Like literally, OMG valley girl style.

    I knew ABG was gone, but to be so pro-Obama that you can't see the protest for what it is, is like so OMG...

    ABG, come on maaaan, even you have to know these people are no lovers of the Administration. I know you worship at the WS alter to depictions of Obama, but you can't be that far gone.

    This protest is not helping Obama sleep at night, and if it gets larger and goes longer, it's gonna put him with a lot of Americans in 2013, in the unemployment line.


    I understand that (none / 0) (#61)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:54:52 PM EST
    the protestors and the administration are at odds in some respects, but the reality is that they are aligned in many, manny others.

    The issue is that OWS is rudderless so the chance of a real agenda forming are decreasing as we move along.

    Ultimately, whether these protests help or hurt Obama will depend on whether they can formulate reasonable demands. If they can, odds are that they will line up in some way with Obama's policies and the two forces could unite.

    If the agenda continues to be tinged by the anarchy fringes, and by those demanding that we scrap the capitalist system and such, then they will never get the support of Obama or any other politician for that matter.

    This from a dispatch from Occupy DC:

    "Like their Occupy Wall Street brethren, the Occupy D.C. crew, about 40 strong at its height on Monday, operates on anarchist principles, making decisions by consensus and without official leadership. Debates can be excruciatingly slow and even the most innocuous minutiae are liable to become contentious. On Monday night, the General Assembly of Occupy D.C. had a fairly quarrelsome debate about how to or whether or not to have a discussion about why they were there. Nonetheless, though debates may be taxing on one's patience they do get resolved and decisions do get made. And here, I think, is where the press leans back on its cynicism in the face of something it doesn't understand."


    If this thing doesn't get some kind of leadership, it will all be for nothing and have zero impact.

    It needs goals and it needs them quickly.  Then the politicians will respond.


    You guys are so funny (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:12:47 PM EST
    Every time I start to write a response I just crack up laughing.

    Here you are, standing on the outskirts huffing, and puffing. "hurry up!" ":Hurry up!" "Where is your list of demands?" "NO, no, a specific, comprehensive, coherent list of demands." "8½ x 11 paper, double spaced, Ariel font, bold italic lettering. "C'mon, c'mon what's the hold up?"

    Lemme ask you, Angry, when the orchestra starts into a Brahms violin concerto, are you the guy in the back yelling, "Hurry up! Get to the point!" I bet, when you put a bagel into your micro, you yell at the door, what's taking so long? How long does it take to warm a bagel?"

    LOL, oh, my Lord. You're funny. So, so funny.


    The proof to me of the power of OWS (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:08:15 PM EST
    is how obviously uncomfortable it makes people like ABG; he has to trivialize, and when that doesn't work, demonize, and when that doesn't work, he'll come up with something else.

    He said something about, if you don't have a plan then you're just yelling to get attention.  Well, yes, that is kind of what's happening now - the movement is getting attention.  That's the first step in an organic process that's clearly striking a chord in a lot of people who know, but haven't felt they had a voice or that anyone was listening, that the power structure is killing this country, and it has to change.

    What ABG doesn't seem to quite grasp is that his way isn't working.  It's not working.

    That ABG is chafing at the messiness that is revolution is something I'm actually kind of enjoying.


    Got my stock answer... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 08:07:53 AM EST
    at the ready if I should be asked today what my demands are or my reason for being there...

    "You're the Ivy League elitist brainiacs, if ya haven't figured it out by now, I don't think I can help ya."


    This is a really funny critique (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    ...making decisions by consensus and without official leadership....On Monday night, the General Assembly of Occupy D.C. had a fairly quarrelsome debate about how to or whether or not to have a discussion about why they were there. Nonetheless, though debates may be taxing on one's patience they do get resolved and decisions do get made.

    Seems like it functions much better than the New Democratic Party which you claim has someone in a leadership position. It also functions considerably better than the current government in D.C. where the 99% have no voice at all.


    Rudderless - without any kind of real (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:40:20 AM EST
    leadership - sounds familiar.

    It sounds somewhat like the New Democratic Party. The main difference is the OWS is the voice of the 99% and the New Democratic Party is the voice of the 1%.


    It has nothing to do with size (none / 0) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:31:10 PM EST
    and everything to do with what the protestors are realistically asking for.

    Which brings the question:

    Can someone tell me what exactly the protestors are asking for?  That could actually occur I mean.

    I have yet to see a coherent answer in any story I have read on the web.


    Then you haven't looked too hard. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:01:09 PM EST
    You haven't even read more than a few comments in this very thread.

    It gets tiresome having to keep explaining things to you.

    I'll let Glenn chime in:

    Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power -- in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions -- is destroying financial security for everyone else?  Beyond that, criticizing protesters for the prominence of police brutality stories is pure victim-blaming (and, independently, having police brutality highlighted is its own benefit).

    Most importantly, very few protest movements enjoy perfect clarity about tactics or command widespread support when they begin; they're designed to spark conversation, raise awareness, attract others to the cause, and build those structural planks as they grow and develop.  

    Or, better yet...here's what a simple Google search of "occupy Wall Street" produced (wait, I have to rest a minute - that was SO hard - okay here you go):

    #OCCUPYWALLSTREET is a people powered movement for democracy that began in America on September 17 with an encampment in the financial district of New York City. Inspired by the Egyptian Tahrir Square uprising and the Spanish acampadas, we vow to end the monied corruption of our democracy ... join us! We're now in DAY 18.

    Now, do you think you can muster up enough energy to read some materials from the site, or will you just continue to wring your hands and pretend no one really knows what these people want?


    Don't forget (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    ABG claims to be a financial guy.  Upton Sinclair was a wise man, as well as compassionate:

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

    It's wilful ignorance ABG is displaying.  And it always will be.

    Hmmm.... unless/until he gets laid off with no severance. Then he'll be all "power to the people!".


    And don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:37:46 PM EST
    how he takes over and sidetracks discussion.

    Now, at the end of this thread, I move on to the rest of the comments to hope for more that are on point.


    Geezus (none / 0) (#112)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    Listen, ABG (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    Take a breath, calm down

    Why don't you just stand back, watch, learn, absorb, try to get a sense of the free association of a budding movement.

    My God, man. These dumb kids, doing everything wrong, undisciplined, unstructured, unfocused.

    And yet, 700 Continental airline pilots show up on Sunday, in full dress uniforms. They came because they felt a calling. The aura, the nuance, something drew them there. I didn't see any Captains there yelling at the kids, "Hurry up! What's the point?"

    This is their thing. Don't be a bully and push them around, dictating how they should organize themselves. Thery're doing just fine. Better than fine. Incredibly fine.

    Damn, man, you know who showed up yesterday to share the feeling with these dumb kids? Joseph Stiglitz. He looked like he was in heaven. Maybe you should step back and ponder, "Just what does a world famous, Nobel winner in economics, see in this bunch of disorganized dummies. Look at his face, his smile is his smile of 30 years ago. Maybe instead of criticizing, you should rather try and get in-tune.

    You'll get "it." I used to look at a Picasso drawing and sneer, "what a jerk.....who wants to look at a fat lady with three noses..........and 3 boobs?????? "

    Yeah, a real dope.

    stop looking.....start seeing


    NYShooter (none / 0) (#143)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    I have no issue with people gathering to protest and if they feel strongly about it, have at it.  I am not telling them to do anything.  I am suggesting that I don't think their current tactics will achieve change and don't think there is any issue with saying so.  My other concern is that a perceived failure of the OWS movement or some knuckleheads getting violent and doing something unfortunate or the movement being highjacked could do real damage to the overall goals (i.e., a very real movement and sentiment is relegated to a footnote as a hippie blip on the radar).

    Good essay in that bastion of the capitalist pigs, Mother Jones, making largely the same points I have been today.

    If you question the points coming from me, maybe they will sound more legitimate coming from that source:



    There is a concern that OWS might (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:46:23 AM EST
    be hijacked by an organization that would do real damage to its overall goals. Being hijacked by the OFA would seriously undermine any attempt to reform government so that it was a government by the people and for the people.  

    Your "concern" that OWS might end up (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    being a "hippie blip on the radar" is just, well, so...oh, what's the word I'm looking for?  Phony.  No, wait - revealing.  No, that can't be it, because you've played that card before, so it's nothing new.  

    So, am I to understand that if the people participating in the OWS movement were to, say, put on their best suits and ties, their best power suits and killer stilettos, put away the signs in favor of PowerPoint, book a block of rooms at the W New York and made appointments with the BSD's on Wall Street to present a list of polite suggestions for how the financial system chokehold could be relaxed just a tad, they might be able to claim success when Wall Street deigns to offer them a bone - a contribution to charity, the appointment of an ombudsman (gatekeeper) to "hear" the people - and everyone can relax and go home - that would work for you?

    Because that would make it a "real" movement?

    Jesus Christ on a crutch.


    Mr. Guy (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:06:05 AM EST
    I wrote waaay too many words yesterday trying to explain my interpretation of the dynamics taking place in this movement. Whatever I write today would just be redundant.

    But, to boil it down, This is their movement. President Obama, the two Parties, you, the reporters, the pundits have all had their chance. They blew it. They are out in this movement's eyes. They have absolutely no interest in "going on the road," with Pres. Obama. They are talking to "the people," and trusting that they want the same thing the movement folks want.

    Everyone involved in the epic destruction of this once great nation is Toxic. These kids don't believe that "sitting down and compromising" with the barbarians who have turned over almost 300,000,000 Americans to the sociopathic, sadistic, vultures that infect the upper floors of the buildings down there.

    "Know when to hold'm, know when to fold'm." Leave these kids alone. Everyone else had their chance. Let's see what they can do.


    Example (none / 0) (#56)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    Al Sharpton, a friendly interviewer, asked an Occupy Wall Street rep what the goals of the protests were and the guy literally could not come up with an answer.


    The Tea Party had a very simple answer: tax cuts, lower spending, smaller government.  Easy.

    Those are actions that can be implemented. What is the OWS counter to that. If this is going to have an impact, the time to settle on some realistic goals is now.  Then Obama can rally behind them.


    I would say that the Tea Party (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:02:55 PM EST
    had a very simplistic (rather than simple) answer and quite detail-free: tax cuts, lower spending, smaller government.  Also, revolutionary.  But, the Obama administration got behind them, maybe trying to co-opt, but actually, adopting that agenda and the talking points, to boot.

    I can't believe that the Administration does not really know what is at the heart of this movement, and with more detail than offered by the early Tea Party.  As for any individual interviewee, certainly a Tea Party guy or two, may have had trouble coming up with a good answer to group concerns other than for the government to keep its hands off his Medicare.

    While President Obama may not need to take off his slippers and put on his comfortable walking shoes and head for Wall Street, he does need to take some actions that are responsive. Otherwise, the times will pass him by.  


    What frustrates me (none / 0) (#114)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:57:41 PM EST
    About this is the fact that Obama has been traveling the country doing exactly what you suggest.

    And it has earned him nothing with many here. I don't think he could satisfy you.


    You. Just. Don't. Get. It. (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:18:13 PM EST
    You keep talking, in comment after comment, about how we don't get it that Obama is talking.






    Talk. . . .

    Reread the comment to which you replied.  It is about more than talking points.  It is about action.

    Obama cannot win this time with pretty talk.  With Just Words.

    He wanted to be president, he is president, now he has to ACT.  After three years, for pity's sake, the man has to ACT to create JOBS.

    Or he is toast, no matter how much you keep talking about how much he keeps talking.


    Obama talks about jobs (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 07:17:51 AM EST
    Obama's proposals:

    o 3 trade agreements that will result in the loss of 100,000 - 200,000 jobs to S. Korea.

    o Revisions to unemployment benefits that will provide free labor to companies. No need to hire people if you can get a free labor force.

    o Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid benefits that will result in more people not only doing without actual medical care but also reduce their spendable incomes further reducing demand. Less demand equals fewer jobs.

    Gee, can't for the life of me understand why people here are not excited about Obama talking about jobs.  



    Well, if you feel that (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    President Obama is doing exactly as I suggest--taking actions that are responsive to OWS goals and objectives and traveling around the country articulating them, then you must feel that the president does know exactly what the OWS goals and objectives are. So, it seems the goals and objectives are not really so vague after all, to either you or the administration.

    And here's more information (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    that was easy to find:

    From aljazeera english:

    AJE: Can you explain, as simply as possible, the purpose of Occupy Wall Street? What statement are you making, and what does it mean to have a protest without a defined goal?

    ET: Occupy Wall Street is a growing movement of people who came together for a lot of different reasons - it's pretty broad and there haven't been any explicitly stated demands, although implicitly, by being on Wall Street and by taking over the space and all the actions that have been coming out of it, it's people who are angry about the way that corporations and politics and money controls their lives and controls the way that they live and breath and function in society, and who have some sort of vision for a different world that exists outside of greed, racism, patriarchy, corporate power and political oppression.

    MS: It's an expression of frustration at the feeling that the political process is being run by economic interests and by giant corporations in particular.

    MM: When people use the word 'occupy' what they mean to say is: Bring the public into a role where they actually advance decision-making, most importantly the decision-making of our economic well-being. The way that the institutions operate in the type of society we live in, is not very conducive to high levels of democratic participation. I think often people feel disconnected. We have these elites in our society that really make us question whether we do indeed live in a democracy, or do we really live in a plutocracy - a country controlled by elites? In this case, the economic elite.

    JAM: It should be reasonably clear to anyone who looks at what's going on at Occupy Wall Street that the goal is ending the corrupting influence of extreme wealth on democratic politics. I don't really buy that people don't understand what this is about. Wall Street controls America, and we oppose that.

    Just because there aren't demands for a certain bill to be passed or a certain law to be repealed, that shouldn't make us believe that it is somehow un-unified or a meaningless gesture. The meaning is clear.

    [Occupy Wall Street] is not only a political protest, but it's also a model society, which I think is the really interesting political protest - that it is itself the demand.

    Next time, please stop insulting our intelligence by claiming you can't find anything coherent that explains the movement.


    Anne (none / 0) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    I read that entire piece and still maintain that it doesn't communicate a coherent set of goals that can be acted on by our politicians or even various industries in any coherent way.

    Your position is hurt by the calls from many withing the OWS movement indicating that the movement has no focus and needs to have some concrete goals.

    One of the main OWS website has been trying to formulate a list of demands for this very reason: Link

    If you don't understand this aspect of the ongoing dynamic, don't blame me for trying to insult your intelligence.


    Oy (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    He's looking for policy proposals. (none / 0) (#96)
    by jpe on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:44:41 PM EST
    Here's another good link (none / 0) (#100)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 06:35:41 PM EST

    The main underlying thrust of these demands seems pretty clear to me -- it's the corporate personhood question.


    That's lunacy (none / 0) (#113)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:54:08 PM EST
    We are protesting to destroy the concept of personhood that is the back bone of global commerce?

    That's insane. If focused on citizens united, there is a point. Then the question becomes what the remedy is.  The remedy is the supreme court. And the supreme court can be changed by a president and if the president is a republican . . .

    All I am saying is that if you are concerned with that issue, the action item to accomplish is crystal clear. Rally around an action item.

    Otherwise, you are just yelling for attention.


    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:54:07 PM EST
    At this point, even if it is just "yelling for attention," that is in itself productive, if it is what's needed to finally get anyone to pay attention to their concerns. Goodness knows all the polite "ahems" from the sidelines have earned the lower 99% only a tad more than jack.

    Yes, I believe that "personhood" for corporations is a huge problem when it comes into direct conflict with the rights and welfare of people who are actually, well, real people. We've reached a point where the rights of people-corporations to make a profit is actually privileged over the rights of individual real people. (And that's before we get into the campaign contributions.) I simply can't believe that's sustainable in a democratic system. Either the corporations are brought to heel with actively enforced regulatory curbs on their power, or the democracy crumbles. What's frightening/exciting about this moment, is that I'm not sure which way it's going to fall.

    And forgive me for being cynical about what you seem to be saying, but if the "action item" that you're suggesting here is "re-elect Obama," well, I'm not convinced that OWS can be -- or ever should be -- a substitute Democratic Convention or massive Obama campaign rally.


    Corporate personhood (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 12:20:48 AM EST
    You made me wonder, is there any other nation that has also been dysfunctional enough to have established such a principle?

    Calling it the backbone of global commerce sounds just a tad... hyperbolic.

    No scratch that.  It sounds like madness.


    Get With the Program (none / 0) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:53:24 PM EST
    You are basically saying that the tea party model is the one to follow.  You are starting to resemble joe republican way too much.  And pretty sure the Tea party would even agree their campaign was an epic failure.

    And stop with the Obama behind the them idiocy, he can't get behind the group protesting his financiers to re-election.  He's not part of the solution no matter how bad you want him to be, he is the problem.

    I don't understand how this isn't glaringly obvious.


    16% of voters (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:27:43 PM EST
    say they are Tea Party members.

    That is more than enough to win any election.


    But They Accomplished Nothing (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 08:31:40 AM EST
    Half the country could be in the tea party, but if their protests failed, it's not the model to follow.

    ABG, (in my best Foxworthy voice), "You might be a republican when all liberals disagree with you and the resident republican backs your idiocy."


    It was in November 2010 (none / 0) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:53:03 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:51:59 PM EST
    That is exactly what I am saying: follow the Tea Party model.  It worked.

    Understand that there is a difference between adopting your opponents tactics and adopted their ideology.  One is smart strategy and the other is treachery. I am going with the smart strategy line angle.

    In any event, a person that views Obama as a corporatist whose sole view of the world is driven primarily by Wall Street interest would obviously take your position. I don't view him that way and thus don't share your perspective.

    Interestingly, the Wall Street types that you reference all seem not to understand that Obama is their guy because they all hate him.

    "Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, said Wall Street bankers don't believe they've been embraced by President Barack Obama and are consequently withholding their support.

    "Wall Street certainly doesn't feel loved," Buffett told Charlie Rose in a Sept. 30 interview broadcast on PBS."

    That's the reality that I hear when I talk to the Wall Street Types discussed here as if they were a  different species of human being (surprisingly they are not, some of my best friends are Evil Wall Street Types).

    They don't think Obama's policies help them. They believe that he is out to get them to some degree.

    As I have said a thousand times, the Wall Street folks think Obama is a socialist and the further left types think he's a Wall Street puppet.  

    The reality is obviously that neither perception is right.


    The Tea Party model? Seriously? (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 08:56:09 AM EST
    The "party" that derives funding from the likes of the Koch brothers and Dick Armey's FreedomWorks?  

    Of course, because what this organic movement needs is to be co-opted by "progressive" groups to create a new "movement" that will look populist and different, but will really just be a new power base to consolidate and corral the disaffected to more easily control them and keep them from actually changing the status quo.  It will become a new way to raise money for and convince people that voting for these "new" Democrats is the only way to save the party and save the universe.  It won't push the Democratic Party, or the corrupt and craven financial industry - it will be folded into them.

    The Tea Party model?  No thanks.

    The Democratic Party model?  I don't think so.

    The Arab Spring didn't happen because the unhappy partnered with the power structure, but because they finally rose up against it.  And no one covering it described them as the OWS participants have been described - as a rag-tag bunch of DFH's with nothing better to do.

    America is supposed to be an example to the world about the benefits of a functioning democracy, but when we decide it isn't functioning, and begin to resist the dysfunctional status quo that is keeping good people down, the powers-that-be - and apparently, people like you - get nervous.

    That wasn't a bad thing in Tahrir Square, and it isn't a bad thing in Zucotti Park, and you can whine all you want, but that isn't going to stop this movement.


    Well....... (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:56:31 PM EST
     One is smart strategy and the other is treachery. I am going with the smart strategy line angle

    A strategy is a strategy is a strategy.


    Maybe he should have referred them (none / 0) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    to the web site. That technique seemed to work for Obama's supporters who couldn't come up with answers on where Obama stood on issues.

    You don't support people who are (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    protesting YOU.

    You adopt the absurd line of Sargent that this protest is something the White House can join.


    If Hank Williams Jr... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    stuck to the facts and just called Obama a fascist, he'd have alotta friends in Zuccotti Park.

    It's about the merger of government and corporate power, all ya gotta do is read the signs the people are carrying.  The only way the admin. can join in is if they resign in shame and apologize for their sins.


    And Forgo Many, Many, Many... (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:04:19 PM EST
    ... campaign contributions.

    Can't do it and win the election IMO.

    The Hank thing is nuts, I was wondering why football seemed different last night.  The I see Hank on the TV.  Seems a bit of over-reaction, clearly hank isn't well, but to pull the whole Monday night football song...


    Hank is not well... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    anytime you paint John The Boehner as the good guy in any picture, you must be ill.

    Same illness quite prevalent on the Brand D side as well though...if we ever cured that one, imagine the numbers the protests would be garnering!

    Forget the social wedge issues and focus on the economic and good of the nation stuff, and the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St. crowds would find so much common ground, then the sh*t would really be on.  Divide and conquer enables all the grift.


    There's the Rub... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:51:11 PM EST
     ...with few exceptions, we all agree we are in a bad spot, what we can never agree on is the solution.  R's & D's generally have the same goals, namely a bright future for all, but we can never agree on how to get there.

    Not sure a world wide protest will ever cure that disease.  I hope so, man, I would love for us to come together and change our future.

    The D brand is done in my book and as much as I loathe to call myself an Independent, it's where I am right now.  No one has my vote locked down, and that isn't true of a couple years ago.

    Maybe I missed a post, but did you make it down there this weekend ?


    Chait (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:00:43 PM EST
    Chimes in right on time with an article making more or less my point:


    Yes, yes, I know.  Chait knows nothing about politics, he's secretly paid off by Goldman, he receives trips to the Bahamas from Obama. I get it, I get it.

    But the point of the article is what I was getting at.


    Btw, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:19:47 PM EST
    I am delighted to "know," if virtually, someone who raised a kid who was/is there with OWS.

    You did good.


    Geithner out (none / 0) (#8)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:40:48 AM EST
    Is to be desired, but if I were an organizer no way would I demand it.  Such a demand would further entrench him into the administration.  If that's possible.  The president can't be seen to be catering to a bunch of hippies, right?  Not after all the hippie punching they've been doing.

    Gradually squeezing is a much better approach.

    I once listened to a book on tape written by one of the students who occupied Tianenmen Square in the 1989.  The mood and momentum of this occupation seem remarkably similar to what he described.  As long as the President doesn't bring out the tanks this should end much better.

    of course, and besides (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    its much, much bigger than Geithner. Its about what Geithner represents: a system rotten to the core, where, with enough money and influence, an immoral lackey can be placed into a position to do more damage to the world's population than a dozen H-bombs.

    I was kidding (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:44:52 AM EST
    I was making a joke about how the wonks now decided that it was appropriate to submit recommended lists of "demands."

    I also demand that I be given a million dollars.


    Well, in that case (none / 0) (#13)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    Put me down for a million, too.

    What would be nice, is if Obama... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    ...could simply make a statement to the Police about setting an example for the rest of the world about how much we respect THE ONLY THING THAT FREEDOM MEANS -- the right to protest, to say no to the powers that be without fear of unjust reprisal. The actions of law enforcement in this country could make a great statement on American freedom, but seem to be about nothing more than, well, I don't know what when it comes to these protests.  So far, the footage isn't going to show the world anything except that we're not as free as we think we are, nor as much of the world thought either.

    O isn't going to come out and support these protests until it is risk-free beyond doubt for him, or until he's desperate.  He could easily make statements about the protests in general, freedom, and the need for police to understand that THEIR future is looking to be helped as well.

    Of course, the ironies of the Arab Spring... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:04:20 PM EST
    ...inspiring this to a degree is too rich to gloss over.

    Also consider (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    Los Indignados (The Indignant)

    Maybe Fox Can Claim This... (none / 0) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    ... was inspired by GWB.

    I never thought of the Arab Spring angle, that is so rich in irony I just want to lather in it for a bit.


    I will give you a $10 (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    gift card to the store of your choice if that ever happens.  

    And count it money well spent.


    Obama could also say that the (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    Occupy Wall Street protesters were as American as apple pie.

    They are the change we are waiting for. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:38:59 PM EST
    Why a less inflamatory title here than (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    at DK?

    Oops. This inquiry relates to Cain post. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    Fox's Kimberly Guilfoyle says ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:22:04 PM EST
    ... Wall St. protesters are "people with absolutely no purpose or focus in life" ... there just to "dirty the streets".

    Hannity agrees and tells the dirty little hippies to get jobs (paraphrase).


    Move On (none / 0) (#84)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:05:13 PM EST
    Just signaled that they are about to jump in to support OWS with their national network and some funds.  The unions are now on board.

    I think that although there are patches of OWS folks who detest Obama, there is more common ground with the traditional democratic machine than one would think.

    Taking a step back, if Obama did endorse the protest, it might initially hurt the efforts.  Better to let the unions and others throw in their support.  

    But if the movement continues, I predict that it will only help Obama.

    And that's not much of a bold prediction.

    Wow, you really are in the grip of (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:55:05 PM EST
    some grand delusion, ABG. This is so not about Obama, not about his reelection, not about the Democratic Party, and not about the Tea Party. Oh, and it is also not about you.

    If you pay close attention to who is participating in the various OWS demonstrations around the nation, if you read the signs and posters dotting the protests, if you listen to what people are saying, then you realize that what they are demanding is a complete overhaul of how this country makes decisions and the thrust of the decisions it makes.

    They are challenging the very nature of power in the U.S.A. They are demanding the end of the "corporations are people, too" mindset. They are insisting that the political structure of our nation, a structure that requires and encourages the spending of billions and billions of dollars to acquire influence with and control the decisions of the elected and appointed political players, be abolished.

    A simple lists of "demands", not unlike what a middle school principal might receive from a student council unhappy with lunchroom choices, is so yesterday.

    Get with the program, ABG. The world just might be passing you by.


    Oh really? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:02:54 PM EST
    A simple lists of "demands", not unlike what a middle school principal might receive from a student council unhappy with lunchroom choices, is so yesterday.

    And so necessary for any meaningful changes.

    You wanna reform Wall Street?

    How about:

    1. Anyone buying a futures contract must be able to receive the amount of the commodity in the contract.

    2. No short sales.

    3. No hedge funds.

    There you have three simple changes that would drastically reform the markets.

    Those proposals are good (none / 0) (#115)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:59:47 PM EST
    Put it on the signs and let's get our rally on.

    No one is making that offer I think.


    Oh really? (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:02:55 PM EST
    A simple lists of "demands", not unlike what a middle school principal might receive from a student council unhappy with lunchroom choices, is so yesterday.

    And so necessary for any meaningful changes.

    You wanna reform Wall Street?

    How about:

    1. Anyone buying a futures contract must be able to receive the amount of the commodity in the contract.

    2. No short sales.

    3. No hedge funds.

    There you have three simple changes that would drastically reform the markets.

    Except this isn't just about reforming the (none / 0) (#95)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:18:53 PM EST
    markets. It is way beyond that. OWS is about dramatically changing the way things are done, decisions are made, power is wielded in this country.

    If possible, how would you characterize the (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 06:35:05 PM EST
    individuals occupying the park in Manhattan?  Age range, employment or lack there of, financial status, education, apparent ethnicity, gender, etc.  Are the majority there every day?  

    I don't know, oculus. (none / 0) (#101)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 06:50:32 PM EST
    I have seen the same pictures on TV and read the same stories as anyone else. Beyond that I don't know.

    There seem to be a lot of young people, but there are old people, too, and middle-aged. Some are unemployed, some under-employed, and some, like the pilots, have full-time jobs. Same with your other categories. Maybe more are white, but there are people of various and multi-ethnicities.

    It does appear that in terms of financial status, those who are in the lower 99% vastly outnumber the masters of the universe in the crowd. :-)

    I think as the days go by OWS reflects the vast 99% more and more. And that is a good thing.


    Welcome to the French Revolution, eh?? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:10:01 PM EST
    Yes, hang on to your hat (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:20:57 PM EST
    and your head.

    U 2 (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 07:02:28 AM EST
    Remember how that one turned out.

    Guess who else makes ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 07:41:42 AM EST
    ... the same, ridiculous analogy - Anne Coulter.

    Two peas in a pod ...


    The thing beyond the market is what....? (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 07:10:35 AM EST
    Anarchy?? Riots??

    Cambodia redux?


    Unmasking (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    Obama will only help Obama..



    When Obama decides there's some way (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:13:11 PM EST
    to co-opt this movement, he'll find a way to get in, count on it; he's probably got his campaign people already working on some kind of smarmy, fake empathetic e-mail blast for just the right moment.


    Frankly, if MoveOn and the unions get into this and want to turn it into some grand strategy to benefit the Democratic Party, I hope OWS says "thanks, but no thanks."

    The Democratic Party is part of the problem, is so entwined with the corporatocracy now, that I hope OWS stays far, far away from it.


    There you go (none / 0) (#129)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 02:54:40 AM EST
    you hit a vital point. My cousin, Rhoda, a 60 something, Harvard educated hippie, has an apartment in Manhattan, and we stay in touch by phone about this protest, movement, demonstration, or whatever it is. She's been giving me a moment by moment sense of what's going. As a veteran Viet Nam era protester, Rhoda is thrilled that, while the tactics are different,  the intensity, and inevitability that this thing is a game changer cannot be denied.

    Then, she told me that Michael Moore showed up there the other day. My instant reaction was, "Oh $hit!" I said, no, no, no Cuz, get him outta there. Being an actress, she was puzzled why I had a negative reaction to M. Moore's arrival.
    But, you get it, Anne. We don't need any publicity hounds co-opting, or usurping this nascent, grass root s flower as its taking hold. Moore has done a lot of good things, but there's a time and place for everything. Thank him warmly, give'm a blintz, and send him on his way.

    The appeal of this group is its unprofessionalism, its naiveté, its spontaneous movement, its purity. If, and when, they need help, they'll ask for it. Until then, leave'm alone.


    I agree with what you and Anne (none / 0) (#149)
    by sj on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    are saying.  And having MoveOn try to turn coattails into leadership would be a drag on what is turning out to be pretty special.  

    Having said that, Michael Moore (specifically) is not one to usurp or coopt such a thing.  My view is he comes as a citizen, albeit one with a louder voice than most.  He comes, offers support and then leaves.  Or so it appears to me.  I don't think he should be made unwelcome, he just shouldn't try to turn himself into a spokesman.  Which he usually doesn't.


    Of course it would hurt them if (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    Obama endorsed them.  They know his association with and need of Wall Street is a big ole example of the problem.  Like I said above, fortunately he appears to be too proud and/or too arrogant to do that.

    As for your prediction: quelle surprise.  You predict everything will help Obama. LOL


    Cannot see how continuation of the (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 06:33:01 PM EST
    protest will help Pres. Obama in any way--except divert attention from his efforts/non efforts to improve conditions.  

    LA city councilman visits Occupy LA: (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:35:37 PM EST

    Garcetti looks "bemused."  

    123 (none / 0) (#106)
    by Addison on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:07:08 PM EST
    (1) I've remained silent on the OccupyWallStreet thing because I know some people personally involved who I do NOT want speaking for me on these issues -- and who I view as not only politically wrong, but potentially psychologically screwed up. The tone seems to be shifting, but initially I was way too close with those involved to not have some healthy skepticism about what exactly they wanted. It's the same reason I stopped going to anything A.N.S.W.E.R. was involved with.

    (2) The tide may be turning on who is involved with this, but initially the make-up of this protest were people who wouldn't care what the Obama administration's position was on economic matters. Their position would be a few clicks to the left regardless. They were democratic socialists and anarchists. It's like saying Nader could've been appeased by Obama -- that's as ridiculous as the now-dead notion that Obama could've appeased Eric Cantor.

    (3) Yes. Tim Geithner stepping down should be one of two demands. The other demand being a Wall Street transaction tax that would be good revenue policy AND good anti-manipulation policy.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#116)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:03:16 PM EST
    There is an anarchist bent to this that the dems have to be very careful to avoid.

    That avoidance starts with a set of reasonable positions. This idea that people marching in the streets with no concrete agenda is going to have an impact is delusional IMHO.

    Just set attainable and semi realistic goals and we've got gold.99% do support real change.  But there has to be some concrete sense of what that change is.


    Yep, much better that (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 07:25:34 AM EST
    Obama stays well away from the OWS folks and continues to validate the tea party and their positions.

    KROFT: .....How seriously do you take the Tea Party, and will it make the task of finding common ground with the Republican Party more difficult?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it'll be interesting to see how it evolves. We have a long tradition in this country of a desire for limited government, the suspicion of the federal government, of a concern that government spends too much money. You know? I mean, that's as American as apple pie. And although, you know, there's a new label to this, I mean those sentiments are ones that a lot of people support and give voice to. Including a lot of Democrats. link

    There is no way they can. (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 07:05:00 AM EST
    There is an anarchist bent to this that the dems have to be very careful to avoid.

    It is a Democratic administration.


    you got off at the wrong stop (none / 0) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:02:11 AM EST
    We`re all on public assistance here, so thanks for stopping by, and.........................don't forget to write.