Here’s an excellent article that tells it like it is. Mike Lillis of The Hill does a great job of accurately describing the political dynamics of the country at the moment. Here is the key part:
Complicating life for Obama, GOP leaders – particularly those in the Senate – have adopted a strategy of opposing the White House even on some legislation Republicans support. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for instance, raised eyebrows at the start of the deficit-reduction debate when he helped kill a bipartisan bill – a proposal he’d previously characterized as the “best way to address the [budget] crisis” – after Obama endorsed it.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” McConnell told National Journal last year.
The GOP’s rigidity has forced Obama to the right in order to pass anything through Congress, which in turn has only heightened the backlash from the left.
What’s left unsaid in the article is that the president is taking a bigger percentage of the flak than he should. Not only is the GOP’s intransigence forcing his hand in almost every case, but the Democrats in Congress are not united and do not uniformly have his back even for the compromised solutions he is forced to propose. At root, our problem in this Congress is that Congress is divided and cannot agree on anything. The SuperCommittee is struggling to even begin negotiations over the budget, and its likely failure to reach an agreement could lead to another downgrade of the nation’s credit rating.
Meanwhile, as the president tries to arouse the left in support of a modest, reasonable Jobs Bill, the left’s heart has left the building and is now focused on protests against corporate greed and mismanagement. Yesterday, whether lured by police or through a lack of any leadership structure, many of these protesters strayed from the agreed path and occupied the Brooklyn-bound lanes of the Brooklyn Bridge for two and a half hours, shutting down traffic and forcing many to abandon their cars. Perhaps as many as 700 of them were arrested and carted off in buses.
This is a recipe for the failure of the Obama presidency and the emergence of a conservative revolution in this country unlike anything we’ve ever seen. For a long time the activist left begged the president to really fight for jobs, both as a political and a moral issue. Yet, it was right in the middle of his push for a jobs bill that they gave up on the political process completely, turned their loving attention elsewhere, and decided to join the pox-on-all-their-houses crowd.
Perhaps the average person cannot be faulted for giving up, or for not being motivated to fight for a president whose hands have been shackled by the Republcians’ determined efforts to ruin him. But a lot of people who should know better are getting caught up in a sideshow.
Yet, the eruption of protest on the left can help the president if he recognizes the opportunity. Unlike what Steven D has recommended, I do not think the administration should align itself with the protestors. What they should do is what FDR did with Huey Long. While the protesters call for Wall Street to “Share the Wealth” the president should tack to the left but maintain himself as the safer alternative. “If you don’t give me a win on this jobs bill, these protests will continue to grow and the pitchforks will really come out.” I don’t know how many of the protesters would agree with my advice, but I do think that at least part of what they’re trying to do is to change the political consensus in this country and yank the discourse out of the death-hold it seems to have become locked in. The economy is terrible and headed into a double-dip recession, and neither the president nor Congress is capable of doing anything big or adequate to fix the problem. The answer certainly is not to give the Republicans another chance. So, maybe the left can shake things up and create a crack in the wall of obstruction.
The administration has to look at this as an opportunity, because if it doesn’t adapt to take advantage of it, his effort on jobs will die a pathetic death, and his presidency will likely follow.
First, I think this is all exactly right.
Second, my heart has largely left the building. I’m not sure what to do about that.
Third, this is exactly what much of ‘wanking professional left retards’ have been saying all along. That Obama needs to fight, and be seen to fight, not because that’ll necessarily lead to policy wins (though who knows?) but because it’s the only long-term strategy that makes sense.
And finally, the biggest thing: Obama could easily coopt much of this, by proposing a truly radical economic plan, including such socialist demands as a modest transaction tax, and making loud noises about investigating possible criminal behavior. http://www.good.is/post/three-concrete-demands-to-hold-wall-street-accountable/
So much of this stuff is such low-hanging fruit.
This recent quote from Jesse Jackson probably fits well here:
“”In 1960 Martin Luther King supported Kennedy instead of Nixon to prevent America from going backwards.
Then he marched in the streets of Birmingham to pass the Civil Rights Act to move the nation ahead.
In 1964 Martin Luther King supported Johnson instead of Goldwater to prevent America from going backwards.
Then he marched in Selma to pass the Voting Rights Act
to move the nation ahead.
For Dr. King there was no conflict between voting strategically to prevent the triumph of reaction and leading a nonviolent mass movement to pressure a president to achieve profound social change.
When we in the movement struggled for social justice we helped weak presidents become stronger.
When we in the movement struggled for social justice we helped good presidents become great.”
Following from this, one key question for those of us “in the movement” is: are our actions and demands expanding (or constricting) the possibilities of a good president becoming great?
That’s a great quote, thanks.
I found this part most interesting: ‘to prevent America from going backwards.’
I will support Obama with money and phone-banking, as I did last time, and of course with my vote–but not to prevent America from going backward. I’ll donate and door-knock and vote merely to prevent American from going backward faster.
But even if we win, I think the backsliding will continue. Which is just unutterably depressing.
And I don’t think Obama has the slightest chance of becoming a great president. I’m not sure he has much chance of being a good one. That’s not because of any personal animus; I think he’s about as good as possible, right now. Maybe he is absolutely as good as possible. But this shit is so broken that one of the best possible presidents still cannot prevent America from going backwards.
There’s a more fundamental dynamic at play that explains why the backsliding will continue: as I just posted in a diary at dKos, we’re at the end of economic growth as we know it.
The far left never had any intention of supporting a jobs bill, protests or no. They want Obama out. But I agree that the protests can be an opportunity for Obama, but it’s such a fluid situation, I think needs to be a little cautious (which is his style, anyway).
The horror of this is almost all consuming to me. Just as the Bush administration obligingly did almost everything Al Qaeda scripted in its most ambitious dreams, the left is preparing to give the insane right its greatest victory by responding to the current situation precisely as scripted by the right. It is as clear to me now as were the insane actions by the Bushies back then.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/09/obamas-inner-fdr.html
Not even TPV is apocalyptic about the unaffiliated protest and anti-Washington organizing from the left, and they break out into hysterical sobs about the administration’s treatment on a weekly basis.
This is a recipe for the failure of the Obama presidency and the emergence of a conservative revolution in this country unlike anything we’ve ever seen. For a long time the activist left begged the president to really fight for jobs, both as a political and a moral issue. Yet, it was right in the middle of his push for a jobs bill that they gave up on the political process completely, turned their loving attention elsewhere, and decided to join the pox-on-all-their-houses crowd.
First, you write as though the “activist left” speaks with one voice and is ruled by one mind. You know that is not the case. It’s like when an old-fashioned bigot says “Women these days want equal rights, but then they still want men to pay for dinner.”
Second, the “activist left”, such as it is, is comprised of people who are willing to devote time and money to the cause. They had Obama’s back in 2009 and 2010 organizing and fighting for health care reform. This effort started before OFA, finally taking action, began organizing people to go to town halls, etc., to spread the word long after the right wing had done the same.
The “activist left” are a disparate group of people willing to do a lot more than just send postcards to Congress. Granted, OFA has very little credibility left, but if they had accompanied the President’s Job Bill campaign with organized action beyond “call your Congresscritter” then the occupywallstreet thing might never have caught fire. But instead, OFA’s main focus these days is on raising campaign money.
So, instead in the absence of leadership, some local group organized their own protests in NYC and the people – desperate for some way to demonstrate and take action – have followed along.
What a missed opportunity this President had. He could have harnessed the power of these protests by setting up in advance a grass-roots-level campaign to push for support for the Jobs bill, lukewarm as it is.
And Booman wants to blame the left. Sorry, Boo, your “greatest progressive president ever” has utterly failed to lead.
People need to take personal responsibility for their decisions. If you give up the fight, you’ll own the outcome. You join the chorus of blaming the president instead of blaming the right, blaming wavering Dems, blaming the media, or blaming the left for falling for a telegraphed strategy. There is a lot of blame to go around, but the president deserves comparably little of it.
You join the chorus of blaming the president instead of blaming the right, blaming wavering Dems, blaming the media, or blaming the left for falling for a telegraphed strategy.
You forget something, Boo. The President shares plenty of blame in all this. Who forced him to hire “Turbo Tax” Timmy Geithner? Who hired Larry Summers? Who thought promoting “Recovery Summer” would be such a great idea? The professional left didn’t force the President to reappoint Helicopter Ben Bernanke. No one forced the President to appoint wingnut USA’s in Texas and Utah. And for what? What do you seem to understand is that we are seeing the failure of DLC governance in a crisis. You can blame the “Professional left” for that, but that just shows you are missing what is really going on. And I am disappointed that you are forgetting your history. Did Huey Long and others like him lead to Conservative dominance? You remember Huey Long, don’t you? You do remember that at one point, Huey Long was considering primary-ing FDR, right? That you would have labeled Huey Long and people like him the professional left of the day? And who is the Professional Left anyway? Does that include people like Joy Reid(who now takes a check from General Electric/Comcast)?
They were then. FDR wasn’t seen as the “Great Paterfamilias” as he is today by the hard left. All of them wanted him to be “radical” although being President isn’t a radical job.
FDR would never have appointed anyone from Wall Street to his administration.
Oh, wait…
Yep, Secretaries William Woodin and Henry Morgenthau would be seen as worse than Tim Geithner is today. Esecially after Morgenthau disagreed with keynesian economics as well as President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs.
Not to mention that well-known socialist FDR appointed to head the SEC—Joseph Kennedy.
Heh, glad you pointed this out, another myth “the left” have folded in with their weird belief system. History isn’t our best subject. But whatever…there’s no sense scolding people about it when their mind is made up. Give me 1000 “Occupy” protests over any Teabagger bash– the current protest’s values are in line with this administration’s. Whether the participants acknowledge that or support the President at all, I don’t think it matters today.
You don’t believe that, do you? I hope not. Why would the protestors have anything in common with failed elites?
FDR pivoted like crazy and he had to constantly protect the sanctity of Jim Crow.
And he had Huey Long and others from the left constantly calling him out as a handmaiden of the elites. And how many terms did FDR win? Also, too, we have hopefully learned from history re: bowing to Jim Crow. But I think we all know what the real problem is, or at least a big problem. Presidents, for whatever reason, are a lot less constrained to take military actions(real wars, fake ones .. like the ‘War on Terror) and foreign diplomacy. Yes, part of it is that Congress can get stampeded into military actions a lot easier than doing stuff to help the people they were elected to serve. It says a lot about our political process, I think.
The “activist left” that can do so much needs Obama to tell them what to do?
The one thing I don’t get from that protest is what does “OccupyWallStreet” really stand for? I mean, I get it says, “Wall Street Sucks” as if no one knew that, but what is the end goal here? The protests in August 1963 called for racial equality, which led to the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts. It was a March of course on the power center of Washington D.C., where the laws are made. Here, I don’t see this as doing anything to actually harness a change in anything. At least with OFA, call your congressman was a way to let those people in Congress know directly, as evidenced by the switchboards blowing out. I just want to know what is the endgame.
I really don’t understand what Booman is saying. The wall street protests imperil his re-election chances? Huh? Booman, it doesn’t add up.
I agree 100% that Obama is very low on the list of political problems we have. No sane person wants a republican administration. But I would say what is hurting Obama’s chances far more are his disastrous decisions to listen to say Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, and not some people saying painfully obvious truths in public.
I agree with everything you’ve written here, and hope you can convey your message to those White House contacts of yours.
One thing that’s always irked me is the idea that FDL and PCCC and groups like them represent the “left” or “activist left”. I think they represent the irrational left while we represent the rational left – that’s the difference. On policy they probably agree with most of those at this site. But they like the idealistic notion that we can get a do-over in the political system. (Maybe that will happen someday, but it’s going to be a long time from now.) They quickly fall back on means outside of the political system as it exists today to effect change. It’s hard to blame them – the system is broken – but it’s what we’re stuck with and as you point out things can get a whole lot worse.
One thing that’s always irked me is the idea that FDL and PCCC and groups like them represent the “left” or “activist left”. I think they represent the irrational left while we represent the rational left – that’s the difference.
You really are an ignorant fool. So Atrios represents rhw irrational left? Hahahahahahahaha!! I suggest you read more history before advertising any more of your ignorance, as Toots Shor used to say.
Hmm… I never mentioned Atrios, so you’re on your own with that.
Seems pretty simple – you have to actually achieve something with activism to make it worthwhile. What have the groups I described actually achieved (not taken credit for, but actually achieved) that made positive change in our political system?
It isn’t just an unfortunate coincidence that the Protest People lost interest in Obama making a jobs-bill push the moment it happened.
The most important thing to Protest People is their self-image as Protest People. Slamming Obama for not pushing for a jobs bill wasn’t about wanting Obama to push for a jobs bill, but about seizing on an excuse to act like Protest People.
And now they’ve proven it. They get exactly the “bully pulpit” actions they spent two years demanding, and they don’t give a shit.
Have you read any of the Occupy Wall Street Journal? How do you know what the protestors want?
That seems to be the huge problem. What do these protestors want? I highly doubt they would get anything they would want from Wall Street other than spilled champagne and JP Morgan backed NYPD officers.
What do I look like, a library? If all you read/watch is the corporate media, of course you’ll have no clue what the protestors want. But it’s out there, and you should have no trouble finding it, if you actually want to read it.
Well, since you defend them so strongly and without question, I would have thought you did possess a modicum of knowledge about what they would indeed want out of this. By your statement, you seem to admit that other than the protestors saying that Wall Street’s whole institution is bad, that you haven’t the slightest clue of what this protest is doing to fix said institution. Its nice to declare war on something, but you have to have a gameplan and an end result to whatever it is this is supposed to accomplish rather than building an emotional response and hoping that works.
OK, here’s their manifesto.
http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/
Because the left of center in this country is small, we tend to forget the very real difference between liberals and the left. Truth be told, we don’t really like each other that much. We work together out of necessity – but there are huge differences between us.
The protests are certainly growing, and its hard to argue that they haven’t found the right target. Typically protesters wind up being unpopular with the general public, and I have a hard time believing that comparing New York to Egypt is going to win many minds.
But then, this is partly Obama’s fault, isn’t it? He allowed liberals to be linked to Geithner and Bernanke when he didn’t clean house on taking office. You can argue that Geithner and Bernanke were critical in saving the country from a depression, but there was no way they should have been kept in office.
I wrote in 2009 that that the decision to keep Geithner may wind up being Obama’s Katrina. I hope I am not right about that.
BTW – arguing that the protesters should be yelling for a jobs bill that has little chance of passage strikes me as a bit unfair.
Well, it seems to have found a right target to throw its frustrations, but there seems to be no plan to make sure that the target is taken out.
I see this just like the lobbyist talking point of 2008, where everyone was saying that all lobbyists were the problem in Washington. There was no real distinction between an lobbyist in Washington trying to expand school arts programs and a coal lobbyist. Wall Street itself as an idea isn’t bad, its the certain kinds of people in it that make it a swill place. Liberals have always been connected to Wall Street. There hasn’t been a left leaning President, Congressman, or Senator that hasn’t been.
the Democrats are the worst teammates EVER.
Like the Redskins.
A little counterintuitively, I’m pretty sure that that is something everyone can agree upon!
They may disagree in which Democrats are the worst teammates, but the general sentiment? Bingo.
I feel that this post is unnecessarily pessimistic when things just started:
Thought experiment: say a whole bunch of Brazilians were to start a concentrated anti-police corruption protest in Rio or Sao Paolo or wherever, maybe on the scale of the anti-drug war protests in Mexico?
Now, the President of Brazil is a socialist woman torture-victim of the military junta that was only dissolved like twenty years ago. Not a traditional elite, right? Pretty much the opposite. And presumably sympathetic to the cause, if constrained by political realities? Much like Obama and Wall Street here, right?
So what would you say about the protestors’ hypothetical decisions? Would they be risking a center-right backlash? Or should they be allowed to do as they feel is necessary?
Brilliant if depressing post. I hope someone in the administration is reading this blog
What the hell is Steven D thinking?
not sure what you are suggesting either. Pres. Obama should be careful in not making the protests about him. Especially with Michael Moore, Cornel West and possibly Nader attaching their giant egos, I mean names to it. If Obama ties himself to this group he is going to have to go all or nothing on the bill and that will hurt the very people who really need it. If he tries to tie himself to this group, many of them will jump up and complain that he is trying to co-opt the movement.
If he wants to make a speech on the general discontent of the American people and give them a one sentence shout out, that’s fine, but I don’t know….
…the emergence of a conservative revolution in this country unlike anything we’ve ever seen.
But no one will have the temerity to ignore us again.
And isn’t that the important thing — that Attention Must Be Paid? Who said politics has to be about policies, anyways?
The one burning question I have for the OWS is do they believe in voting? because if they don’t, Obama would do well to keep away.
Also, color me shocked that the left has moved on. Some might say he took too long and I will say that’s bullshit. This is how they work. Scream for something, make demands and swear they will do X if Obama does Y. Yet as soon as that happens, they either move the goal posts or move on to something else. This is why I have no sympathy for them and their demands. If PBO wants their attention, take something away. See how they reacted to the ozone rule? when it was put in place, they ignored it. Take it away and it makes every front page of their blogs. So Obama should announce that he will be dropping a part of the bill, any part, and you’ll see how quickly the left starts talking about the jobs bill again.
a lot of people seem to be pulling this “what do they stand for/what do they want” act when it comes to #OWS. Fuckin’ magnets, how do they work?
There are these things called “search engines” and you can use them to “look up stuff” and “become informed”. Here, I will do it for you, longer descriptions at the link:
Oh. Those. CAH-RAY-ZEE. Radicals. What’ll they come up with next?
(by the way, Norton anti-virus is now trying to block the occupywallstreet.org site. ignore it.)
I did notice that the manifesto at http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/ lists its complaints from the least crazy to the most. This does suggest to me that at least those in charge of drawing up the manifesto are aware of what’s crazy and what’s not.
That seems like a good sign. Of something.
Ok, I see what most of this is. It entails “Congressional” action, most likely meaning Congress in Washington D.C. If the protestors are trying to do something legislative wise, what the hell are they doing in New York?
i’m not even going to dignify a question like that with a response, other than to repeat “fuckin’ magnets, how do they work?”
DC is coming.
Just be honest with it. They are protesting a symbol. Wall Street has the money, yes. But unless you are going to burn Wall Street down, destroy the machines that have the money, etc, its kind of pointless. Its the reason why these assholes are toasting the protests. They aren’t afraid. They will just spend money on police and cart them off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZVplOZ_e-U
Washington D.C. makes the laws, the media complex takes out the message. Screw with those first, the assholes won’t have much to put up a fight with.
so by way of analogy, what you’re saying n effect, is MLK shouldn’t have been marching in Selma, but only in DC. cus that’s where they make the laws.
gotcha.
No. Don’t even try doing that. This is the problem with some liberals, how you always want to conflate the Civil Rights Movement with a movement you back. It grossly shows that many still don’t really understand that movement at all, just want to use it for your own personal gain.
Dr. King Marched on Washington, and the Selma march wasn’t just a march about the voting rights laws as well as the murder of a Civil Rights Worker. It was a way to harness attitudes about the murder to where the African American population would retaliate violently. Many of the marches he led were about governmental change where government was the subject. This march is different in terms that its more of an anti-wall street march. Yes, its a nice focal point, but a dead end if you want action to happen. This march is more symbolic than anything else. More emotion, than action.
it was the easiest example.
perhaps the gay people who rioted at stonewall should have saved their energy for DC. Perhaps the people [protesting in wisconsin and ohio should have gone to DC.
there are any number of examples. There’s something going on here, but you don’t know what it is, and that drives you apeshit, doesn’t it Mr. Govechris1988?
Ok, so now, your going to Gay Rights since I obliterated your Civil Rights talking point. The Stonewall Riots were borne out of spontaneity. They were also VIOLENT. Hence the word, riots. Note, after those riots, while they were credited with starting the Gay Rights movement, it didn’t stop those police raids then nor did they lead to better treatment of Gay citizens by that alone.
Two, when you keep bringing up every other protest, stating I think all those protests were wrong or something, it tells me your debating skills kind of stink. I’m not talking about Wisconsin or Ohio, since those protests were about STATE issues, so meeting in front of the STATE capitol makes sense there. The WALL STREET protest however, is only protesting Wall Street, as if it has power in itself. It only has power when it utilizes its money force to our Washington policymakers. The manifesto states that much of what could be done to rectify the problem TAKES CONGRESS, in Washington D.C. Wall Street doesn’t have that power.
Look, I agree that this protest could lead to something like Stonewall and Selma sparked off, a real movement to regulate Wall Street strongly. However, its got to be more than it is right now. It has to encourage action and civic duty in our political systems, Federal, State, and Local or else this protest will end up like the Iraq War protests of yesteryear, huge, mad and powerless.
actually my debating skills don’t stink, I just think you’re a bullshit artist who’s not worth arguing with. you say stupid shit like “what do they want” when you can look it up online in like 5 seconds.
you don’t know what you think, either. one minute it’s all “thisis stupid”, now it it’s “I agree that this protest could lead to something like Stonewall and Selma sparked off, a real movement to regulate Wall Street strongly.”
please. you simply don’t get it; you just don’t. stop trying to tell someone like me, who DOES get it (and is in fact living the other 99% reality) that I don’t get it. I have no job, no prospects, a $50K college loan debt, and no retirement. My reps are owned by the banks. Shit, when they needed a democrat to run for senate, they chose ARLEN SPECTER. that says EVERYTHING i need to know.
So, now your argument is, “Americans who don’t know what this protest is about should “look it up”. Yeah, you can’t debate. I see it, by the way you are telling me what I think about this without reading what I typed. You keep putting words in peoples mouths or in this case, their texts. In NONE of my posts have I said that this protest is stupid like you are trying to say that I said.
Two, I never said you didn’t know, nor did I imply you didn’t. But see, thats what a person who can’t really debate does, play the victim and accuse the other person of berating you and your intelligence. Republicans have been doing that for years and you seem to have follow in their footsteps at least in debate terms. This protest has sparked something very important. However, it has to tap into our political institutions, or else these protests become another Vietnam/Iraq symbolism protest or a protest without action to back it up. You want that manifesto enacted, talking about being an anarchist and saying its a revolution won’t do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoumvQmLRZU
The only way to lead a successful revolution is ONLY through War. Unless they are torching Wall Street, this protest won’t do anything. It has to be about reform.
I like how you tried the “I’m a poor college grad” thing on me, since I am also a recent grad with student loan debt, no jobs, no retirement, etc. If we don’t utilize the political institutions along with this protest, we fail ourselves and the nation.
P.S. Sestak won that Senate primary and lost to Pat Toomey. If you even believe Joe Sestak, Rahm Emanuel’s pick for that House Seat 2 years before wasn’t bank owned, your fooling yourself.
dude, you’re describing yourself here. “playing the victim”; “putting words in people’s mouths” (when did I say I’m an anarchist? I didn’t, YOU did, and then proceeded to pretend I did). Please. I laugh at you.
My statement stands: you’re a bullshit artist. And I will read anything you write from now on through that lens.
I didn’t call YOU an anarchist, I was describing what one of the OWS protesters was advocating in the clip, which you obviously didn’t look at. I will still say you’re a terrible debater because you didn’t even get into what I was arguing about, the OWS protests and how they need to get into the political arena more. You haven’t made a case against that. You just belittle and insult what you don’t agree instead of state why I am wrong. “Bullshit artist, huh?” Sure you aren’t projecting yourself onto me, because the only bullshit I see here are the arguments your trying to concoct against me to not address the topic at hand.
Yes, those are some lovely demands. Very admirable. What are the chances that the current Congress is going to do any of those things? Zero. What are the chances that the next Congress is going to do any of those things? Not so great, but it depends on how many Republicans are in there. If they have the majority in either house, forget it.
Does that mean it’s useless to demand them? No, I don’t believe that it does, but it sure as hell isn’t sufficient. Especially considering that every one of the demands listed here is something that Congress would have to do, you have to keep in mind that the entire bottleneck here comes down to just 535 people out of the entire nation. If you can’t get a majority of those 535 people to agree to your demands, none of these things is ever going to happen.
And of course right now the House is controlled by a party that has developed a highly reliable process for identifying the most dimwitted and inflexible right-wing ideologues and electing them to public office. How well do you expect your demands to be received by people who are so feverishly devoted to basically the opposite of everything you want?
Granted, putting in all the time, faith, and energy it would take to electe sane people to Congress is kind of boring compared to stopping traffic, but it does have the advantage that it might actually get us somewhere.
Amen to that.
so are you at the ignoring, the ridiculing, or fighting part?
Fighting WHAT!!!!!???? Going to New York, getting arrested, then WHAT!? Will Wall Street have a change of heart? Will the Republican led House and 53-47 Democratic Senate suddenly start passing legislation? This movement has a problem if it doesn’t have a cognizant plan of action besides holding up signs. Is there going to be an election plan of some sort? Is there a 50 state rally of every candidate running for Federal, State, Local government?
Aren’t you interested in the winning part? Do you not get that you’re talking to people here who share your goals but question the methods you’re endorsing?
I mean, I know how fucking magnets work, but more importantly I know how fucking Congress works. How, in your analysis, is #OccupyWallStreet going to transform demands into legislative results? Keep in mind that one house of Congress right now is controlled by people who despise you and have devoted themselves to thwarting everything you believe in. Do you think they’re going to change their minds if you just chant a little louder?
I have no idea how, or if, OWS will do anything. I kinda doubt it, but I give them a good .02% chance.
I have a pretty fair idea how the alternative works, though. It doesn’t. We elected a smart, progressive president, with a historic margin in the House,a large majority in the Senate–supermajority for a while–and what did we achieve? We slowed down the train wreck.
That’s the best we can realistically do, and you’re mocking the chanters? They’re naive idiot children, marching in circles and banging drums, but they’re a hundred times more savvy than people like me, who believe in donating to Dems, and phone-banking, and door-knocking, and writing LTEs. My way doesn’t work. My way cannot, I think, conceivably work, without shifting of the tectonic plates.
They’re hopping up and down on the plates, hoping they’ll shift. That’s better’n I’m doing.
Historic margin in the House? Large majority in the senate? Tell that to the Roosevelt 472/57 landslide victory which gave us 313 Democrats to 117 Republicans and a 59/41 with no filibuster like we have. Beats our 59/41-on a good day with conservative Democrats who are Maine Republicans and 257/178 victory in the U.S. House. Remember all those House bills that were passed but were stopped by the Senate. Of course, we couldn’t tell the hard left that one. They didn’t want to acknowledge THAT, since it would take heat off of President Obama, and that damages their belief in their own imperial Presidency that they were so jealous of President Bush having.
If this is the BEST they can do, than its just sad. You don’t have Wall Street scared, you have them toasting you mockingly. Start voting in people at all levels, then they will quake at the boots. If you think what they are doing is better just because of news coverage and Hollywood backing without hard plan of action, we have already lost you.
That’s why I didn’t say ‘biggest ever.’ Historic might’ve been too much for the House, but we had an overwhelming margin. And you’re saying what, that we need overwhelming landslides in order to get anything done? I agree with that. Except I think that landslides like that are structurally impossible now.
“Start voting in people at all levels.”
Talk about people toasting you mockingly!
That’s your plan? Sounds like the underpants gnomes to me. OWS sounds that way, too, less so than ‘first, get overwhelming majorities in Congress …’
Seriously, though: how do you see things changing for the better?
Right, so you laugh about voting on school board level, yet bitch when they take important facts out of textbooks and taking the arts out of the schools. This is our problem, the right votes every election, for EVERY votable candidate for office, and we wonder why the GOP is over 40% in elections, even ones that they should lose with lower support. I never just said voting overwhelming majorities in Congress. That will help, but it shouldn’t be all that we do. Thats why I believe in voting in state elections, and county elections and city and town elections. It took damn near 40 years for the Republicans to do it, but they did. But, hey, you believe voting is a pipe dream while they decide whether or not creationism should be taught as a pre-class to The Old Testament 101.
Steggle, “How do you see things changing for the better?” is a great question.
Here’s one answer—demographically. Every year for the next decade approximately 4 million Americans will turn 18. That means that by 2020, there will be about 48 million potential young voters who were underage in 2008. Let’s assume they lean Democratic by a 3-2 margin (a conservative estimate based on 2008 exit polls), and that only half of them vote. That adds up to a 4.8 million vote “cushion” in 2020 for Democrats nationally compared with the 2008 electorate. (That’s not even counting the impact of the nearly 2 million deaths annually among those over 65—a more conservative part of the electorate.)
Of course, this just means that there’s an opportunity for progressives and for Democrats. It doesn’t mean we’ll do the work necessary over the next decade to take advantage of that opportunity.
One of the things Obama did best in the 2008 campaign was constantly remind his supporters how hard the road ahead would be, and that the damage done to America over the previous decade would not be quickly or easily repaired. He was right.
America today is similarly configured to the America of the early 1770’s…
Then, about one-third of Americans wanted independence from Britain…about one-third were loyal to England…and about one-third were neutral, or didn’t care…
Here we are again…
One third believe Government is the solution, about one third believe Government is mostly the problem, and about one-third are neutral…
That’s why the Tea Party is so critical–the lesson from the 1770’s is that the side with the greatest belief and passion, not the side with the greatest numbers, will carry the day…
That’s also why, with each passing day, I am more and more intrigued by the candidacy of Herman Cain…
This man believes…
The Tea Party by its very nature is intransigent…and that is not going to change…
The side with the army won. The Loyalists didn’t have one, not of their own. The one they borrowed calculated costs, benefits — and went home, from 1780 on. Nor, by definition, did the neutrals.
The Continental Army was over a year old when the Declaration of Independence was finally issued by the Continental Congress.
Partially true…
But the loyalists had the most powerful nation on earth, at that time, on their side…
And they lost.
“Passion and belief” my ass. Here’s Madison on the kind of passion and belief that animate the Tea Party:
(What? The permanent and aggregate interests of the community? That’s socialism!)
The most powerful nation on Earth was then in a death struggle with the second most powerful nation on Earth who provided much material support to the Rebels, particularly the Rebel Navy. Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown because his relief forces, being transported by a fleet commanded by Cornwallis’ own brother, were successfully blockaded by Admiral De Grasse at the Battle of the Chesapeake.
France (1779), Spain and the Dutch (1780) formally entered the war on the side of the Americans and made the American Revolution a European War and threatened the invasion of Britain. That’s the main reason the Brits gave in, Fighting a war in America with People bacning on your front door was folly. Imagine Bush arguing about fighting a war in Iraq with the majority of the Troops were there if Mexico, Cadada and Russia had declared war and Russia was moving troops into Canada and Mexico. What would you do in that situation, assuming you didn’t have 3 tomes the amount of CVNs as the rest of the world combined?
There is no accident that the Treaty that ended the war and recognized American Independence was signed in Paris.
You are correct Liberty. Except the Tea Party should be equated with the Loyalists, not the Rebels. The Tea Party (and I work for a local Chairman) is very reactionary, not radical. They want to return to I would say 1950, but even that is not true. They want to return to their fantasy all White 1950 where paternalistic corporate leaders agonize over how to do more nice things for their employees.
The phrases “radical” and “reactionary” are interchangeable, depending on the STATUS QUO…
Reactionaries support it, and radicals oppose it…
Today…in my view…the status quo is that individuals cannnot take care of themselves…so, therefore, government must take care of them…
That is the basic premise of Progressives…
Just this morning, on a “Sunday News Show”, the Democrat Governor of Massachusetts defined, in his view, the difference between right and left…
Right believes if the government leaves everyone alone, they will be okay…he meant it as an insult…I took it as a badge of pride…
In modern America, Liberals and Progressives are the Reactionaries, because your philosophy has dominated our culture since FDR and the New Deal…
We are the radicals, because we reject the paradigm that individuals need the assistance of the State to realize happiness…
We reject a Paternalistic, all-powerful Federal Government, consuming one of every four dollars of wealth produced in this country, that buys loyalty from its Democrat constituents in exchange for the gilded cage…
You must choose between the primacy of the individual human being, or the primacy of institutions…
Corporations are institutions, not human beings, despite the Supreme Court.
Doesn’t it depend?
Have you researched S-corporations, as opposed to C-corporations?
An S-corporation can be just one person…
Do the research…
Most “evil corporations” are really just individuals trying to make a living, protecting themselves against, primarily, lawyers…
The ability of individuals to “incorporate”, thus providing protection against parasitical workers and consumers (the heroes of modern Progressiveism)…is one of the cornerstones of this country’s ability to create wealth…to the benefit of workers and consumers…
I had an S-Corporation. I was a person. My business was not.
Small point here, Liberty for All. The adjectival form of democrat is democratic.
C’mon, Booman. he’s done nothing but miss opportunities for three years.
I’m through with him, and you should be too. What I am reading here is just more of the same, endless magical leftiness thinking. He’s not gonna “do” shit. Face it.
The ship be sinking and the boat done left.
Crash time a’comin’. Face up to it.
AG
I highly doubt you were ever with him in the first place. So “through” is kind of redundant.
You are partially right. I listened to him squirm and squeeze through an interview with the execrable Randi Rhodes on Air America before he got to the point that he could actually take advantage of the PermaGov fix to be (
s)elected Preznit of the United States of Omertica…he wuz just auditioning at the time.There is no more accurate description of his act there than this one:
Yup.
He was certainly a better choice than was the wonderful McCain/Palin combo, but then …that was the fix.
So it goes.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while…after all, he is a very gifted and intelligent man…but cop-out after cop-out, eventually I gave up on him.
Before most, but not overly early on retrospect.
Like I said…so it goes.
Next…???
AG
Love that article you cited which said that the killing of the #1 most wanted man in America 10 years running was just for re-election purposes, that President Obama could intervene in a state based execution, and God knows what else reads like a anti-Obama Libertarian Greenwald primer. No wonder you’re so far gone.
What!!!???
Y’mean they finally killed Kissinger!!!???
Oh.
Sorry.
I misunderstood.
Nevermind.
Yore freind…
Emily
The real question, AG, is what would Lao Tzu do if he were President?
Rely on the Tao…
IT’S(contraction combining the words “It” and “IS”) just a matter of time for statism (a political systme), backed by collectivism (it’s fundamental philosophy) when ITS (possessive) chickens come home to roost (see Greece)…
Your model…if you are a statist/collectivist…does not work…
Walk away, prolly.
Wy do you ask?
AG
It’s no use, Arthur. It’s like arguing with the Tea Party. They cling to the Obama that they want to be, and refuse to see the Obama who is.
What I can’t understand is how Obama insults and blames those who were his most enthusiastic supporters in 2008, and thinks that will bring them back to the fold. If he would ever once say, “I’m sorry. I took the wrong course.”, I would probably come back. But instead, we get this, “How dare you talk about not voting for me!”, shit like Booman keeps saying.
I will vote for the Democratic congressional candidate, probably Tammy Duckworth whom I despise as a tool of Rahm Emanuel, but she will run against Joe walsh whom I despise more. That is what the next election comes down to for me. Not who is the lesser evil, but who do I hate more.
I’m so sorry that my prediction that Obama would be an even worse President than Jimmy Carter came true. OK, I get it that he’s not an FDR or LBJ, but couldn’t he at least be a Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton? Did he have to be another George fucking Bush?
Enthusiastic? HA!!!!! The former Edwards supporters and Clinton supporters A.K.A. PUMA’s were enthusiastic!? Thats a laugh. They just joined the bandwagon, especially after the 2008 Republican Vice Presidential Candidate from hell came into town.
I see that now from the tripe you wrote. He’s worse than Jimmy Carter, he’s George W. Bush. For someone who charges after people who as you said, “refuse to see the Obama who is” you seemed to not know when you voted in 2008 who he was. Then you state that he is blaming his supporters without evidence to the contrary. Your whole post is nothing but the same left purity bullshit I see everyday. But wait when that Republican comes back in, and there is no Democratic President to jump on, then we will see you wailing about him and how we need a progressive champion in the mold of FDR the great mythical progressive, not the REAL FDR.
Look, you vote for whoever, its obvious that you don’t care what happens. But I’m going to keep doing what I have to do to improve this nation with the tools I have.
Yes, I didn’t know who he was in 2008. I believed his words. I believed that he wanted fundamental change. I believed he cared for the little guy more than the rich. I was a sucker. I admit it.
By talking about lefty bullshit, you admit he is a right winger. No better than Lieberman.
You keep spitting on FDR. You remind me of a guy at work. He hates Roosevelt also. He thinks Roosevelt was a Communist. He’s a 76 year old conservative non-ethnic white guy, whose parents were store owners who lost everything in the Depression and blamed Roosevelt. I think you get the picture.
To believe his words, you have to LISTEN TO EVERYTHING HE SAYS, not the soundbites that made you tear up. His policy positions, which by the way change a little after EVERY president gets elected. His campaign was more than “Hope and Change” but that’s all you heard, due to the eight long years of President Bush plus the fact that this would be the first African American President of the United States.
Two, I like President Roosevelt. I never said I didn’t. I never said he was a communist. But you do the very same things that Republicans do with President Reagan, romanticize his accomplishments. His Social Security Act was revolutionary, but it left out millions of people, especially African Americans. He also interred many Japanese Americans in prison camps, which didn’t get rectified fully until the 1980’s, well after he was dead. He also was slow on Civil Rights. I shake my head at the same people who want President Obama to bat 1,000 out of the gate on Gay Rights and get everything passed, but excuse Roosevelt on that same thing.
Three, he’s not a right winger. Its funny, since on the other side on the hard right, he’s a Bolshevik, but on the hard left, he’s Barry Goldwater. Its unbelievable.
… [Obama] is not a right winger. Its funny, since on the other side on the hard right, he’s a Bolshevik, but on the hard left, he’s Barry Goldwater. Its unbelievable.
This comment illustrates the crazy situation we are in today.
He is neither right-winger nor left, Micheline.
He’s just an upwardly mobile black guy, looking for a way through the middle.
He’s found it too, provided the whole house of cards doesn’t fall on his and everyone else’s heads. Even if it does, he and his family will be alright, more than likely. There’s always Denmark or Holland or…
Ahhhh,…you know.
AG
This is just ridiculous. Obama is a thoughtful, smart, liberal but practical, hard-working, profoundly decent man. He is not a socialist, he is not a corporatist, he is most certainly not vacuous (not that you said that; I’m sort of responding to two posts in one, which is perhaps unfair) — and he is not “just an upwardly mobile black guy.”
No?
What evidence has he offered…on the strength (or weakness) of his actions/non-actions…to support your picture of him?
I mean…maybe he is a “practical, hard-working, profoundly decent man”, although the relatives of bin Laden and al-Awlaki might contest that description…but really, Lynne. Are we better off than we were under Butch II?
I’m not.
So…what has his supposed profound decency brought us? Besides the spectre of another 8 years of right-wing rule?
Not a whole helluva a lot, Lynn.
Not a whole helluva a lot.
So it goes.
Glad to meet another believer.
Thanks for the stasis, sister.
Thanks for the stasis.
Later…
AG
“I mean…maybe he is a “practical, hard-working, profoundly decent man”, although the relatives of bin Laden and al-Awlaki might contest that description…but really, Lynne. Are we better off than we were under Butch II?
I’m not.”
Tell that to those millions who are currently benefiting from the provisions of the ACA, those people who can now openly serve as gays in the military, and those people who now have jobs because of the stimulus. All three things which were and are critisised by the left.
But hey, you ain’t better off so its all bad. You ain’t got yours, so screw the country.
Swatch.
Lord!!! Where are these people coming from? A week on the site and already coming on nasty.
What “ACA?” Which “ACA?”
Google says:
Further…I am not too fond of the military, Suyranis. As far as I am concerned, “able to serve in the military” translates as “Ain’t enough jobs in the non-military, so we’ll have to take the chance of getting our asses shot off in order to be able to make a working class living.” A privilege? Not in my book. Not in a permanent war system. Gay, straight, bi…I don’t give a fuck. Not a privilege and not a duty, either. Not in the middle of the Permanent Government’s permanent war system it isn’t.
Ron Paul pins it in his 11 Points.
Go away.
AG
P.S. And…if you are going to stay, at least learn how to deal with basic posting. Quotes and things. And lern how to spel, too.
“…critisised?”
10 year olds can do these things. Why can’t you?
Ahhh. Now I get it. You’re one of those Ron Paul “progressives”.
that he is.
Oh, I love those. The type that believe that Barack Obama is so right wing, even though he never ran as a Republican in all of his life, so they vote for the guy that has ran as a Republican for his Congressional seat, ran for the Republican nomination for President in 2008 and 2012, and if he were to win, would be the nominee for Republicans, which is the Tea Party’s party as well as the establishment Republicans. Would be a Republican president implementing Republican policy for four years.
It’s not that. AG doesn’t want Republican policies but he doesn’t think Ron Paul would be a Republican on the thing that bothers him most, which is permawar.
It’s a pointless argument. Ron Paul isn’t going to be president.
Though he will be Republican on everything else that they supposedly don’t like. Its like watching a fat contortionist.
Gandhi didn’t live to see the media’s power, Chris. If he had lived…which he didn’t, a refutation of the quote in itself…the sentence would have read as follows:
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then you lose.”
The Howard Dean syndrome.
Bet on it.
Unless of course you beat the media at its own game, which is quite plainly what Ron Paul is trying to accomplish.
Booman quite flatly states that Ron Paul cannot win the Ratpublican nomination. It is quite possible…but not 100% sure…that he is correct. Numbers do not lie if they are honestly taken, and if Ron Paul’s astounding honesty…astounding coming from a national poiltician, for sure…continues to resonante with the American people, the Ratpub convention could get quite interesting.
Or…as I recently sketched out here, there is a real third party opportunity window presently opening up in this country.
We shall see.
Soon.
By this December or perhaps the early spring of next year things will be much clearer.
Until then?
May you…along with all of the rest of us… be born(e) into interesting times.
Later…
AG
P.S. So now I am one of those Ron Paul “progressives”, eh?
I have spent my whole life quite successfully living outside of the boxes into which society works so strongly to put us. I am not voluntarily climbing into this one, either. What I am is a pragmatic U.S. patriot. Nothing more and nothing less. So far, Ron Paul is making by far the best sense of any of the candidates, and I stand by that statement.
Can he win? My pragmatic lenses say that:
1-Yes, maybe he can.
and
2-If he doesn’t, the other available choices will take the country even further into its current downward spiral.
So he has my vote and my support.
If things change?
We shall see.
Soon enough.
I mean…maybe he is a “practical, hard-working, profoundly decent man”, although the relatives of bin Laden and al-Awlaki might contest that description…but really, Lynne. Are we better off than we were under Butch II?
So we should just ignore the fact that Bush II completely trashed the economy and the GOP has been doing its level best to completely jam any attempt to improve things, and offer up the hope: “Well maybe one of those lunatics on the right will get us out of this mess!”
Is that your idea?
“Right” and “left” are great examples of two-dimensional thinking, Lynn. There is always a third choice, third way of looking at things.
Sometimes even a fourth.
Two dimensions?
A cartoon’s view of the world.
Bet on it.
AG
Sigh. Well here’s the thing… as I’m interesting in actually having a say in who’s elected President, I’ll not be considering a 3rd or 4th dimension, but will vote for Obama.
Obama.
A cartoon drawing of a “liberal.”
We all get what we really deserve, Lynn.
Yes, we certainly do.
Do you watch a lot of TV, Lynne?
TV news?
Betcha.
You been had.
AG
“They cling to the Obama that they want to be, and refuse to see the Obama who is.” You mean the Obama who campaigned on expanding the war in Afghanistan and who’s “public option” was forming a state sponsored insurance company to compete with and drive down insurance prices?
And who then was screamed at by Leftists like you for expanding the war in Afghanistan and not swinging for the “public Option” that meant a single payer health care system?
I think you lot had your own ideas on Barack Obama and then you rages at him when he didn’t confirm to those Ideas. The rest of us actually looked at what the guy actually said on the campaign trail.
But hey, real leftists like Jane Hamsher worked with the right wing to kill the ACA and are currently working to kill Obama and the Democrats chances in 2012, and they’re just fabulous.
“What I can’t understand is how Obama insults and blames those who were his most enthusiastic supporters in 2008, and thinks that will bring them back to the fold.”
When did he do that? Quotes please. Because I remember him saying that we need a strong and critical left wing voice in the country.
“I’m so sorry that my prediction that Obama would be an even worse President than Jimmy Carter came true.”
Hes the most successful and most progressive president that you have ever had.
“OK, I get it that he’s not an FDR or LBJ, but couldn’t he at least be a Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton? “
He’s more progressive and successful than either Nixon or Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s Proposals for Health care were very similar to the ACA. And FDR and LBJ had real Filibuster proof Majorities, yet FDRs New Deal excluded Blacks from the New Deal, and LBJ had a history of fighting Civil Rights Legislation, and LBJ expanded the Vietnam war.
“Did he have to be another George fucking Bush?”
I’m hoping you mean Bush Senior… shakes his head
White liberals have been screaming for President Obama to be more like LBJ, but I guess you meant LBJ 1964-1965, not 1968 when he was cannibalized by the left.
When I was in my late teens and early 20’s I went through a pro-Black phase like most of my college or college aged peers. It was Malcolm X vs MLK, with most of us believing that had Black folks followed Malcolm instead of MLK, we’d be in a much stronger position, not that we could define what that meant. We romanticized the late 60’s. Footage of disorganized protests and even riots seemed so much more satisfying than the footage of a civil and uniform march on Washington and MLK standing side-by-side with LBJ just a few short years earlier. As my black politics professor said to me once, “Oh to be young and dumb again.” It wasn’t until years later that I understood what he meant. The helplessness and anger I was feeling that caused me to embrace Black nationalism was the result of being in a community marginalized for 16 years under a conservative revolution that resulted from the late 1960’s.
As you say, Booman, there are a lot of Democrats that should know better, but they seem hell bent on history repeating itself. Just like the left was convinced it could recover in 1972, they are convinced they can recover in 2016. They are absolutely clueless. Even if they can hold the same coalition, it won’t work, but there is Black anger brewing against the white liberal left that will likely implode the Democratic Party if President Obama loses. You can dismiss it as one Black woman’s hysteria, but you all need to be paying attention.
That’s why Herman Cain needs to be our candidate…
Once and for all, will dispell the myth that, somehow, free markets are racist…
Wow…this post make me realize that Progressives will truly “lose your lunch” if this man wins…
NMP…if you were in a room with Herman Cain…what would you say to this man?
Cain represents our vision of a color-blind America where only ability and work ethic counts…and skin color “don’t mean sh.t”…
As a Tea Partier, I truly long for that society…
As an evil business owner, the fact that, one of my top two partners is a black man who spent eleven years in prison because he wouldn’t rat on his superiors on a drug charge…a man that is truly my brother…a man of character…well…race means absolutely nothing to those who want to create wealth for the betterment of all humanknid…
Where do I donate to Herman Cain?
All due respect…MLK would have more much more affinity with the Tea Party than wiht Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton…
MLK would have denounced the tea party for exalting the Oppressors and demonizing the oppressed. That’s why the real MLK switch the the democratic party despite being a lifelong republican.
And yeah, I have a black friend too… rolls eyes
“MLK would have more much more affinity with the Tea Party than with Jesse Jackson….”
You mean the Jesse Jackson who was at the Lorraine Motel with King on April 4, 1968?
Ever watched Obama walk through a room after a speech? He doesn’t look anyone in the eye – he is a dick. I’ve been behind him the whole ride because of the alternative was worse. Abandoned? He’s driven his natural supporters from his side (Cornell West, etc). He’s bought the corporatist line from Day One (see HCR).
He’s an epic fail. There I said it. It’s his fault, not the “hand-wringers” or other ‘hippies’ we seem to like to punch these days. It’s no doubt that he’s ‘trying’, and that the situation he stepped into was a disaster. But he chose to double-down on the stupid at every important opportunity, as has congress.
The idea that a truly democratic movement in NYC, and now many cities, is somehow a distraction from getting something done is WAAAAY off-base. What happened to doing two things at once? I guess doing ‘democracy’ can’t be one of them.
For those who wish to continue to support him as he sells you out on issue after issue, please enjoy yourselves.
I’m thinking that correction of the system is more than just a tad more likely to come from the street than from Washington.
I’m thinking the people want a little of that good old, self-determination. A jobs bill is dandy, but once it is all said and done, the status quo has merely been maintained, if not strengthened.
Fuck the establishment. I’m all for working within the system if there is a path along which we can move forward. The ‘downer-in-chief’ has taken us down a dead end.
Is this post a spoof? I can’t even tell anymore.
Hmmm. Punching hippies…………..Calling him downer in chief……….corporatist…….diagnosis… another hard left bitchfit again.
Perhaps, but I thought repeating the same thing over and over again is a definition of madness, remember?
Centrist pussy footing needs a radical leftist threat or nothing gets done. So.. please complain about people providing the space for some more minutely incremental ‘triumphs’ for the ‘reality based’ folks. They are thankfully not taking marching orders from anyone.
Head.. just.. a .. bit.. further.. into.. sand..
Crowded down there, no?
Oh, my heads in the sand? You are ready to give the White House back to a Republican, after we have had three in the last thirty years, compared to our one sans Barack Obama, but my heads in the sand? All this talk of withholding votes only punish politicians, but not people, yet my head is in the sand? Seeing how splitting votes for candidates who can’t win, and leading protests with no immediate action or goal afterward is WAY more efficient than say voting at every level of government candidates who can win and rectify the abuse, YET my head is in the sand? Ok, you can believe that. I can’t stop you.
Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a definition of madness, remember?
Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a definition of madness, remember?
Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a definition of madness, remember?
Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a definition of madness, remember?
So……..sitting the election out ala 2000 and 2010 isn’t the same thing?
Whatchoo tawkin’ ’bout Willis?
How about both voting AND scaring the pants off of establishment toolbags at the same time?
Y’know. Democracy?
Notice who is on the side of the protests? Workers and unions. Notice who is frantically telling us to ignore them? People who are paid to/willing to repeat the same mistakes over and over, as long as they like the guy leading them down the old primrose path..
Again, putting words in people’s mouths. This protest as it is lacks focus. I’ve seen the manifesto and unless Wall Street can vote these passages of legislation through, it seems pointless to be there instead of the power epicenter that is D.C. Two, President Obama will be the Democratic nominee in 2012. It will either be him or the Republican nominee. All third party candidates are, are nothing but spoiler candidates for either the Republican or Democratic candidate. As per this article about the Koch Brothers, they had utilized Ralph Nader alot.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
(Again?) These are your words:
Please start with some substance instead of triumphantly pigeon holing me in some group that you’ve been told to dislike. I didn’t write the article above. Well-trained, low-information voters are on all sides, I guess.
Not sure what Nader has to do with my comment that the protests will provide space for the corporatist drone left to wake up and claim [other than having the balls (apologies to Colbert) to show up and do something rather than merely distributing commentary snark (admittedly, Nader’s usual activity)].
Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth.. I don’t think I’ve called for a third party (at least above). I’ve called out the party that doesn’t seem to want my support and directed their attention to a people’s movement that can provide the room for them to finally grow a pair and deliver. If you don’t get the dynamic, keep working against your own interests and have fun in the corporatist nightmare you never had the gumption to fight, merely because the republicans are worse.
Re-electing Obama without a significant threat to the establishment from the Left (it can’t be from him, he’s afraid of being called Socialist) will do what to change ANYTHING?
“This protest lacks focus” – another original thought.. yeesh.
Yep. One of those true blue progressives that do just like conservatives and deflect every damn thing instead of answering. I mentioned two elections where the hard left fought the left instead of the ESTABLISHMENT RIGHT, which would make being left in the nation much easier. You are advocating fighting the left more than fighting the actual target, the right.
And I have seen the manifesto, which states CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. Now, I don’t know about the space program, but unless Wall Street has a voting legislature, this protest is in the wrong place. They are protesting a symbol rather than protesting the actual power centers like, U.S. Congress in Washington D.C. Or the Congressional offices of the Republican and Democratic candidates, cetc. Thats why its unfocused. It probably isn’t an original thought, because many watching are thinking it. Ignoring it for your purity contests don’t change the problem.
I get it. You just don’t want to think or take in new information. That’s cool. Just spare me.
No you don’t. If you got it, you would be preparing to fight the opposing side.
Boy, the conservatrolls are really reaching these days arn’t they? Say, any plans for who will you have as your great white hope after Christie implodes just as Perry & Bachmann did?
You and I have had the same frightening vision.
In general, I’m very sympathetic to OWS’ cause, but highly skeptical that it will really change anything. First, I think a couple of things need to be mentioned to put it in perspective. Earlier this year we saw thousands occupy Wisconsin’s capitol for months, organizing and mobilizing an effort that secured an unprecedented six recall elections (the effort still goes on to recall Walker). The unions have been organizing and mobilizing all year. That they’ve joined with OWS is a good thing, especially as it will provide credibility and much needed direction (groups like Anonymous just won’t cut it; groups like that will alienate mainstream America, who is very sympathetic to the cause of reigning in Wall Street and enacting punitive measures). Second, the Iraq War protest were, I believe, the largest protests in our history, with 500,000 marching in NYC along with hundreds of thousands of others in major American cities. There were massive demonstrations overseas as well, with a million turning out in London and Rome. Some much needed perspective, I think, to counter the hyperbolic rhetoric used to describe OWS by its supporters.
And that rhetoric is a bit flaky at times. It comes in part from this non-hierarchical, leaderless structure they seem to want. Yeah, it’s great that Michael Moore, Cornell West, and Susan Sarandon showed up. Unfortunately, those people don’t have much political clout or credibility with most Americans. And most Americans aren’t looking for an Arab Spring revolution–they want security, especially economic security. They are not going to be swayed by anarcho-syndicalist appeals or forty-year-old counter-culture activism. OWS hasn’t just triggered the next American revolution; they haven’t even equaled the success of protests movements held earlier this year.
All of this boils down to not controlling the message (irony–the far left has the same problem they accuse their allies on the left of suffering from). Given the American public’s typical reaction to police using extreme measures to subdue protesters, the main story coming out of NYC–the protesters vs. the police, rather than the protesters vs. Wall Street–cannot be expected to sway public opinion. We have countless examples to look back on from G20 summits held over the last decade. The other problem that arises is that doing something like shutting down traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge doesn’t inconvenience Wall Street–it inconveniences the public, the very people OWS needs on its side if any of this is to mean anything.
I keep seeing all of these criticisms dismissed with smug reassurances that they don’t need organization, they don’t need to control their message, because people will just figure it out–after all, it’s called Occupy Wall Street, right? But that’s just not the case.
Been lurking for a while……
Booman my friend, you usually are on point with your observations, but you’re so off base on a key part of this, that it forced me to de-lurk!
I believe you’re saying that the OWS protests are going to cost Obama the election? Seriously?
I was at the LA protest on Saturday and i plan to go back on Monday. I’ll pass the word that your advice is to shut up and clap louder.
The sanctimonious disregard of the protesters by many on the left (not necessarily you) is more then depressing.
No wonder we can’t save a man’s life who’s unjustly slated for death by the state.
No wonder we can’t stop the war machine
No wonder we can’t support the president
No wonder at times he can’t support us
No wonder most of us realize the country is swirling down the toilet bowl…. and yet we can’t seem to stop it.
Far too many of us are invested in pulling our allies down! Too many of us want to “Hamasher” Obama and too many of us want to punch a Hippie “Obama style”! We can’t get anything done like that.
Again, i went down to the protest. And i don’t agree with everything on their agenda, because their agenda is all over the place. But i on went down to support. Because sometimes, folks, it’s just important to support your allies. That’s how you build a coalition. You freaking show up to their events. THEN you have the credibility to offer some constructive criticism. and THEN they’ll likely take it.
Again the whole thing is is a bit unfocused, so a couple of credible people who are out there in the streets with them can probably narrow the focus of the protests even more. (Or an insidious person could co-opt their message to fit his own agenda… like a Ralph Nader for instance)
The overwhelming majority however, are going to support Obama in the election
Lastly, these type of protests are only going to get larger. The natives are getting restless all over this planet. People want answers and our first world establishments aren’t to interested in giving them.
Point being, even a blind man could see that people were going to start hitting the streets here as well. The question was, where will their energy be directed? Well, if the smart sanctimonious people who supposedly know everything don’t actually do ANYTHING to help direct the protesters energy in a specific direction, then that energy is going to be all over the damn place now isn’t it?
Tea Party will be there to meet you…
Great! Then when i meet them in person, i can rip them all new ones for being asshats!
Just like the tea party were there protesting AGAINST the protests in Wisconsin.
Just so understand my concern, much of it is about timing.
We have a month window that is already half over to build support for the president’s jobs bill. How many progressive voices do you hear talking about that?
It’s not the protestors that are imperiling the presidency. It’s the people who should be working on the jobs bill but aren’t.
That’s kind of why i think the President should tie his Jobs bill in with the protests somehow. Slightly less then half the signs i saw out there were about jobs.
The thing that’s so funny about this is that the Wall Street moneybags are said to be abandoning Obama and backing Romney. Of course, this is supposed to be terrible news for Obama.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/30/business/la-fi-obama-wall-street-20110930
Meanwhile you’re worried that OWS is bad news. Like Wall Street is so popular all across America.
You compare it unfavorably to Wisconsin, yet Occupy Wall Street is already attracting the support of unions and community groups.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111002/ECONOMY/310029971
This is something that has to happen. It’ll be OK.
A flamer. A flaming ass. Beyond David Brooks.
That is all.
I respect you, Boo. I agree that the Hill article is completely on target, but I believe you veer off course when you claim that OWS is a repudiation of Obama and his jobs bill. They’re giving him room to maneuver.
One thing the Occupy Wall Streeters are accomplishing is that they’re exposing the Tea Partiers’ claim that they hate Wall Street as the pathetic lie it is. That has real value for those who wound chose to believe TP rhetoric. You and I know that their anti-corruption stance has been pure bullshit all along, but some didn’t.
The President and the Democratic Congressional caucus are moving toward a more aggressive negotiation stance (out of absolute electoral neccessity, it seems), but they absolutely need to be held to some positions, and pushed on others. Keep in mind that one of the elements associated with the Obama Jobs Bill is the Buffet Rule, i.e. creating fairer taxes on those insufferable assholes who think it’s a real hoot to champagne toast the protesters. Obviously, the protestors would associate themselves with that movement, even if it isn’t in the OWS manifesto I’ve seen.
I do have concerns if this will remain helpful to our goals if the police are successful in continually corraling protesters and having the movement lose momentum from attrition. I also worry that the protestors will be goaded into violence, which is also unlikely to help our policy goals, given the current mass media and its amplification and justification of the new security state.
One thing for sure: if the Tea Party takes the Republicans away from the younger generation on economic, education and job policies, they’ve irretrievably lost the next generation, because they won’t get the youth on social or military issues.