What's missing from this picture?

My dad was born and raised in Oklahoma, but my grandparents on that side were originally from Missouri. So I inherited some mule-stubborness along with a “show-me” attitude.

To the dismay of some people who have been reading my posts for years I refuse to believe in the Protest Fairy and I remain skeptical if not suspicious of the OWS movement. What do they expect me to do, lie and pretend to believe in something I don’t? If I could do that I would be getting paid big bucks to do this instead of blogging for free.

It is my belief that OWS is an astroturf operation intended to aid Barack Obama’s reelection.

Glenn Greenwald:

Can the Occupy Wall Street protests be transformed into a get-out-the-vote organ of Obama 2012 and the Democratic Party? To determine if this is likely, let’s review a few relevant facts.

In March, 2008, The Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline “Democrats are darlings of Wall St“, which reported that both Obama and Clinton “are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions.” In June, 2008, Reuters published an article entitled “Wall Street puts its money behind Obama”; it detailed that Obama had almost twice as much in contributions from “the securities and investment industry” and that “Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from” that industry. When the financial collapse exploded, then-candidate Obama became an outspoken supporter of the Wall Street bailout.

After Obama’s election, the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House for the first two years, and the White House and Senate for the ten months after that. During this time, unemployment and home foreclosures were painfully high, while Wall Street and corporate profits exploded, along with income inequality. In July, 2009, The New York Times dubbed JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon “Obama’s favorite banker” because of his close relationship with, and heavy influence on, leading Democrats, including the President. In February, 2010, President Obama defended Dimon’s $17 million bonus and the $9 million bonus to Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein — both of whose firms received substantial taxpayer bailouts — as fair and reasonable.


Upon being inaugurated, Obama empowered as his top economic adviser Larry Summers, who had “collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the [prior] year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees by several troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations,” including a fee of $135,000 for a single day of speaking at Goldman, Sachs, and who also led the orgy of Wall Street deregulation in the 1990s. Obama installed as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whom the New York Times explained had “forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street’s giant financial institutions.”

When Obama chose him, Geithner had just participated in a secret meeting along with Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, at which it was decided that a bankrupt AIG would be saved and then — with taxpayer money — would pay Goldman every penny owed to it. Summers, in February, 2009, defended gaudy AIG bonuses as compelled by “the rule of law” even after the administration forced auto union workers to take sizable cuts in their contractually guaranteed pay.

As his Chief of Staff at Treasury, Geithner chose Mark Patterson, the former top lobbyist for Goldman, Sachs. Goldman replaced Patterson with Michael Paese, who at the time was the top staffer to Democratic Rep. Barney Frank in his capacity as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which regulates Wall Street. Obama’s choice to oversee America’s futures markets was Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive who, during the 1990s, was known for his shockingly lax enforcement of regulations governing derivative products. Obama re-appointed Bush’s Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, and named CEO of GE Jeffery Immelt to head his panel of jobs advisers, along with several other job-cutting corporate executives.

When Rahm Emanuel — who had made $16 million in three years as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton White House — left as Obama’s Chief of Staff to run for Mayor of Chicago, Obama chose as his replacement Bill Daley, who at the time was serving as JP Morgan’s Midwest Chairman and a director of Boeing. Shortly after Obama’s star director of Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, left the administration, he became a top executive at Citigroup. The DCCC, recently headed by Emanuel and now feigning support for the protests, is characterized by little other than a strategy of supporting corporatist, Wall-Street-revering “Blue Dog” Democrats as a way of consolidating power.

One of the most significant aspects of the Obama administration is the lack of criminal prosecutions for leading Wall Street executives for the 2008 financial crisis. Obama recently opined — even while there are supposedly ongoing DOJ investigations — that Wall Street’s corruption was, in general, not illegal. The New York Times recently reported that top Obama officials are heavily pressuring New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to join a woefully inadequate settlement agreement that would end all investigations and litigations against Wall Street firms for pervasive mortgage fraud.

Gee, how could an anti-Wall Street movement support a Wall Street puppet?

Take a look at the pictures at the top and bottom of this post. They were taken at a “Occupy Chicago” protest. Besides the American flag, do you notice anything else missing from those pictures? Take your time, I’ll wait.

Do you see any mention of Barack Obama? Any at all, good or bad?

Kinda curious, isn’t it? All this anger directed at Wall Street bankers, and none of it towards the bankers’ puppet.

Yes, it’s true that the OWS is not supporting Obama. (Not yet anyway.)

But they had no problem co-hosting a march last week with union groups that do support Obama. And we keep discovering Democratic operatives connected with OWS.

Imagine this scenario – next spring when the protests pick up steam again (they’re gonna have to shut down for the winter in a few weeks) Obama announces he’s firing Tim Geithner and is now a born-again populist who wants to tax the rich and regulate the banks. (He’s halfway there already)

Suddenly OWS decides that Obama’s their guy. Not all of them, but they’ll have enough union members and OFA types seeded into the movement to make it plausible and the media will cover them and not the dissenters.

They won’t be ecstatic, of course, but they’ll support Obama because “The Republicans are worse!”™

What’s that you say? People will never fall for that?

Why not? They did before.

If you think I’m wrong then answer this question – who runs OWS?


BTW – did Obama have any connection with National People’s Action when he was a community organizer?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to OWS = OFA

  1. votermom says:

    To the dismay of some people who have been reading my posts for years I refuse to believe in the Protest Fairy and I remain skeptical if not suspicious of the OWS movement.

    Thank gawd for that. Far too many puma & “Too Liberal For Obama” blogs are falling for the the OWS trap.

  2. WMCB says:

    To the dismay of some people who have been reading my posts for years I refuse to believe in the Protest Fairy


  3. Same people that believe in the Protest Fairy are still waiting for their unicorns and ponies.

    • Mimi says:

      Every time I look at anything to do with the OWS the anger over student loans of outrageous amounts and their fury at not finding high paying jobs as their due leaps out at me. I have three kids. The youngest is a senior in college. I started saving when they were born. Why? I had no money in college. None. My parents helped as much as they could but it was up to me to finish fast and go to work. Loans were forbidden because you did not borrow on future earnings. It was pay as you go. I had weird college jobs to earn cash.

      My kids were smart but they were not told they could go to Harvard. They were told to go to the best state university they could get into. All three have attended the University of Texas at Austin. Our savings (and some current cash) for them have paid for it. I have been saving and/or paying for college for 28 years since the eldest was born. No loans were allowed and they had to live cheap which they did. We are not wealthy. We are practical and live within our means modestly. If I could do this why didn’t the parents of these angry young debtors think ahead and consider the situation they were placing their children? And why are they angry at everyone when they placed themselves in this untenable situation?

      • DeniseVB says:

        We took out second mortages to pay our kids’ college. Thank goodness to those badasses, Wells Fargo and B of A. 🙂 Got to deduct the interest that way, also felt as though we were paying ourselves back. As the Second is paid off, all that equity is ours again.

        Both kids still had to work for their beer money and to live off campus if they chose.

  4. Yep, if they are against Wall Street, they have to be against Obama who let Wall Street and the banksters off the hook.

    • djmm says:

      Exactly, Craterlakegirl. There are no signs using harsh language against President Obama and none even mildly chiding him for not holding Wall Street accountable.

      Why not? Like Myiq, I am skeptical. (And thank you, Myiq, for staying that way.)

      I say, vote all the bums out and let them learn about unemployment the hard way.


  5. WMCB says:

    These guys are obviously conservative with libertarian leanings, so take with a grain of salt, but this fellow went to a OWS meeting, and his observations are,I think, fair and insightful.

    Big contrast between the sincere kids and the “organizers”, according to him.


  6. Jeffhas says:

    OK – so then, can we have this discussion?:

    OWS = Movement secretly driven by party hacks.
    Tea Party = Movement NOT secretly driven by party hacks.

    I’ve been reading your posts (but maybe not closely enough I guess).

    It’s clear the Dems are salivating to have a movement of any kind that would give them some reason for their members to go out and vote…. and your analysis seems on the money, but I’m not quite there yet…

    I am skeptical of OWS for sure – their tactics, the type of crowd, the lack permits and obeying local ordinances, etc… and I’m seeing the connection to Dems – but that type of case could have been made (and was) with the Tea Party movement as well… and yet, I have less skepticism about the Tea Party, in fact, I think it has done much good in shaping a debate about spending, debt, taxation, waste, etc. Give ’em credit, they made an impact – of course, they were willing to withhold their votes, which is the only true power the individual has.

    So – even thought I am skeptical, I have taken a ‘wait and see attitude’ to see if I can pinpoint the actual co-op. Right now, I’m not impressed with the left saying it’s all organic goodness, and the right saying they’re mobs.

    Just want to hear some other takes on OWS vs. TP.

    • myiq2xu says:

      I think the Tea Party was intended to be an astroturf GOP movement to gin up opposition to Obama.

      But the TPers themselves were angry at their own party and broke free of the leash. Scared the hell out of the GOP establishment because their first targets were GOP incumbents.

      So far, OWS is doing NOTHING in regards to elections.

      • yttik says:

        I agree, I think the tea party was intended to be astroturf but they went rogue against the R’s.

        I’m really hoping the OWS can do the same, but their demographics aren’t like the tea party’s. OWS is mostly younger men, about 75% in Seattle. The TP had a whole lot of women and a lot of older people involved. No offense to young guys, but they’re less likely to read legislation and more likely to support violence and confrontation and a lot easier to astroturf.

      • WMCB says:

        I have never been to a teaparty or a teaparty meeting, but I know lots and lots of people who have. I personally know the man who singlehandedly organized the San Antonio protests.

        One big difference: at the teaparty meetings, it was very very rare to have any of the astroturf groups (Freedomworks or whoever) running the show and the agenda, doing all the “training”, etc. Teaparties were free to go after their “own” party with primaries etc because they, while not entirely free of them, were markedly unentangled with and reliant on them.

        The teapartiers ran their own meetings – with schoolteachers and truckdrivers and LOCAL businesspeople. Almost all of them, (though a few might have welcomed some advertising help or whatever from “official” groups), ran the show themselves with people who had zero connection to GOP fundraising groups and PACs.

        You did not see people whose paid job it is to “organize” coaching the groups in big meetings before their protests. There was no one there in any official capacity 90% of the time. You could find a few paid organizers hanging around the teaparty groups, but they were very very few.

        OWS is crawling with paid operatives from unions, OFA, Acorn, etc – both in the street and in the “organizing” meetings. Literally crawling with them. You can’t swing a cat without hitting people whose CAREER it is to organize at these OWS events. That was simply not true of the teaparty events and meetings. It just wasn’t.

        • myiq2xu says:

          People used their names at TP events – the organizers, the speakers, everybody.

        • Crawling is a very good descriptor. Like roaches or other vermin.

        • myiq2xu says:

          OWS is crawling with paid operatives from unions, OFA, Acorn, etc – both in the street and in the “organizing” meetings.

          I don’t have a problem with those people being involved. I have a problem with OWS trying to conceal it.

        • WMCB says:

          I agree, myiq. Don’t hide it. And if you are, why?

          You are going to get yourself in trouble by constantly asking things like “Why?”

        • bemused_leftist says:

          “OWS is crawling with paid operatives from unions, OFA, Acorn, etc – both in the street and in the “organizing” meetings.”

          Those operatives must really like smell, shitting on cars, lack of clear demands, etc etc. If the operatives are really having any influence, that is.

          Or maybe they’re hanging around trying to GET some influence, but not succeeding? (Assuming there are really quite as many operatives as claimed.)

    • WMCB says:

      OWS = Movement secretly driven by party hacks.
      Tea Party = Movement NOT secretly driven by party hacks.

      For me, Jeffhas, it’s a question of accumulation of data points. Are there a few data points that indicate that the teaparties were astroturf, or at least that GOP PAC’s etc tried to make them so. Of course there are. But not that many, considering the size of the movement.

      Looking at OWS, there is an avalanche of data points showing involvement on every level of official Dem and professional advocacy group involvement. They are everywhere.

      You need lots of data points to mark a trend. The teaparty had a few. OWS has a ton.

      • WMCB says:

        Biggest honking data point. The GOP was scared shitless of the teaparty, and it was very evident in their tone and demeanor.

        Seen any fear of OWS on the Dem side? Seen them shaking in their boots that this “rogue” group is going to take over their cushy cocktail party?

        I haven’t. That’s a screaming neon sign with sirens as far as I’m concerned.

      • 1539days says:

        Plus, the Tea Party is a catch all for a certain sentiment. Those rallies and the poeple attending them couldn’t have enough impact to influence an election. The votes of people who agreed with Tea Party sentiments, if not their entire platform, where the ones who gave the House back to the Republicans.

        Tea Party has a meaning. Colonists were sick of taxation without representation. Obamacare is the epitome of that. Occupy Wall Street just sounds like they’re either taking up space or taking it over in a coup.

        • votermom says:

          They use “occupy” to indicate that they are just like the Tahrir Square protests.
          However, I don’t recall the Tahrir Square protesters using the word “Occupy”. All the protests in the region were launched by a call for a “Day of Rage.”

          Also, very coincidental that they should pick a word that starts with “O.” (The better to co-opt your group, my dears)

          (Btw, for my parents, who lived through WW2, “occupy” in a political setting is a very negative word, connoting Axis occupation.)

      • Jeffhas says:

        Yeah – I see the data points… a few weeks ago I felt like it was too early to know, but every day brings it into plainer view. Still, I have this aversion to committing to it’s ‘not a real movement’ status – I mean I’m not involved (I just haven’t had time to pay super close attention recently), have not participated in an event – and do not know anyone personally that has gone to an event… so I guess I’m skeptical on either side. Once my workload decreases, I’ll have some more time to devote to getting to know some people that are personally involved…. unless they’re just crazies!

        • WMCB says:

          Jeffhas, I don’t mean “It’s not a real movement” in the sense of “the ordinary people there are not sincere.”

          But whoever set this up, from what I can see, is actively discouraging them from forming any kind of semi-unified message, or having actual leaders from among themselves. Why? The teaparties were successful because they did organize themselves from within, choose local leaders even if informally, and try to set out a plan for achieving leverage over our govt using the system we have. Yes, there was a lot of emotion, but the emotion wasn’t the point of it all.

          Keeping it all vague and anonymous does not benefit the protestors in achieving any goals, and they are being outright discouraged from having any measurable ones. Under the guise of “leaderless consensus” they are being held to no targets other than symbolic ones. Why? It doesn’t benefit them. It does benefit those who might have an interest in keeping a boiling pot going without any real threat to the status quo.

  7. 1539days says:

    When I see certain bloggers calling for one of Obama’s “You must pass this bill” TM bills, I can tell something happened. Like I’ve written before, OWS is liberal porn. It’s nostalgia for former hippies and it’s a revolutionary idea for the newbies.

    There’s even buzzwords like “open source” decision making. You know how open source works? Somebody writes a code. The next person takes it and changes it to their liking. Then the next person takes that code and expands on it. Every programmer in the world doesn’t try to write code together.

    The Tea Party is different in 2 ways. First, it was always corporation friendly. It is not inconsistent for them to get millions from the Koch brothers or whomever to help organize. At least those protesters weren’t PAID to attend. Second, that group was out of power. There was a Democratic president and Congress. Now, there’s still a Democratic president and Senate. The Republicans still can’t pass anything and they still have to fund the government. They can only block.

    Let’s not forget. First they try to seduce you, then they try to bribe you. Then they try to destroy you. Then you vote their asses out and you win.

  8. WMCB says:

    The GOP very obviously feared the teaparty.

    The Democratic Party very obviously does not fear OWS.


  9. insanelysane says:

    The OWS supporters that I know happen to be Obama voters. They still believe Obama got all his contributions from poor students and down and outers at $25 a pop. They close their ears and eyes to any contradictory information.
    LALALA hands over ears.

    When I ask them why Obama bailed out the bankers and didn’t haul any of them into court…all they can say is” yes, I’ve wondered about that” then they continue to support him blindly. Arrgh!

  10. foxyladi14 says:

    his reelection team 🙂

  11. DeniseVB says:

    There are different wings of the Tea Party. Some wanted to stay grassroots and just have volunteer dependent rallies and townhalls to hold the President’s, Congress’s and local pols’ tootsies to the fire on the matters of fiscal responsibility (and giving taxpayers a voice in HOW they spend their money). I tend to support this independent groupthink and #occupyreallynicehotels.

    The Tea Party most mentioned in the media are the ones who want to run third party candidates or endorse those Republicans who sign a pledge to them in blood. If you break that pledge, buh-bye. See: Scott Brown. They thrive on donations a la political party style. Not for me, my wallet snapped shut long ago.

    The Tea Party I support is about 41% moderate Dems and Independents, and to my surprise, a healthy number of former pumas.

    I’ve been on Peace and Tea Party marches, and believe me, the media always finds the nutjobs. But this OWS “movement” was started by anarchists and enviro-anti-consumer whackos. What could go wrong ?

  12. gxm17 says:

    I agree that the Dems are trying to hitch a ride on the OWS bandwagon. The proof is in my email inbox. However, the right wing commie!/anarchist!/socialist! frenzied fear tactic kinda looks a bit “astroturfy” in its own right.

    And the commie-anarchist-socialist-hippie-obot frankenstein the anti-OWS contigent has created is just a wee bit fantastical. I realize that these stereotypes strike certain nerves, but this shotgun approach with cliches tends to have a cancellation effect.

    Americans, on the right, left, and middle, are angry and disillusioned. And they’re hurting. The Tea Party represents the right, the OWS appears to be tending left, and each have legitimate concerns. Personally, I couldn’t be happier that Americans are finding their voices after so many years of quiet submission. It’s time to return our democracy to the citizens. Let’s hope it happens.

    • myiq2xu says:

      However, the right wing commie!/anarchist!/socialist! frenzied fear tactic kinda looks a bit “astroturfy” in its own right.

      Have you actually watched the videos of OWS?

      There really are people waving communist flags and preaching socialism.

      I’m not worried about commies, but that kind of stuff will alienate the mainstream that they claim to represent.

      • crawdad says:

        There you go quoting Glenn Beck again.

      • gxm17 says:

        People who wave communist flags whilst “preaching” socialism are confused individuals. I’m not going to judge a movement by some of its members who are less than well-informed, that would pretty much remove any political movement from consideration. Personally and politically, I have no problem with the socialism part of the message. It’s something I could get behind if it were led by actual socialists. But combining the words “socialist” and “Obama” is an oxymoron. Then when anarchist and commie are thrown into the mix it starts looking like right wing scare tactics to my eyes.

        Out of curiosity, are there (m)any black flags flying at these events?

        • myiq2xu says:

          Obama is not a socialist. Nobody here said he was.

          Here’s the Occupy Philly rally. Count how many flags you see:

        • WMCB says:

          No one here said Obama is a socialist. And no one here “threw commie and anarchist into the mix”. They are THERE, at the protests, and in some cases helping organize the thing and do training in tactics.

          If a bunch of Nazis and skinheads with flags and masks were showing up at the teaparties doing the same, I would not assume they spoke for all.

          But my expectation would be that they would be a) ostracized, and b) very publicly renounced as unwelcome by the rest of the teapartiers.

          Failure to do so would lead the public to judge them accordingly, no matter how “small” and “unrepresentative” a part of the whole those offensive groups were.

        • gxm17 says:

          All I counted was a communist flag and an American flag, but no black flags. Let me know if I missed it/them.

          myiq, when the anti-OWS makes claims that OWS is OFA astroturf and then claims that OWS supporters are socialists and commies, it creates a contradiction. Socialists, real socialists (and communists), are not going to support Obama.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Socialists, real socialists (and communists), are not going to support Obama.

          They aren’t going to win many elections either. But they comprise a significant portion of OWS.

        • myiq2xu says:

          I’ve gone through a dozen pictures of OWS and I saw several black flags with a red diagonal stripe across it.

          That’s the anarchist flag.

          I didn’t see any protesters waving American flags.

        • WMCB says:

          Again, no one here said that Obama is a socialist. But sincere idealistic communists and socialists get used by power-hungry politicians all the time, in lots of countries. It’s not like that’s unheard of.

        • votermom says:

          I didn’t see any protesters waving American flags.
          At least they aren’t burning any yet either … are they?

        • gxm17 says:

          They aren’t going to win many elections either. But they comprise a significant portion of OWS.

          So which is it? Does OWS = OFA? Or does OWS = a lot of socialists who, presumably, wouldn’t vote for Obama?

          As I said before, I know for a fact that the Dems are trying to crash the party. And I hope they don’t succeed. I’d rather see a third party spin off, similar to the Tea Party but liberal and not associated with the Dems. It doesn’t matter to me that they “can’t win.” I just want someone to vote for in 2012.

        • gxm17 says:

          I’ve gone through a dozen pictures of OWS and I saw several black flags with a red diagonal stripe across it.

          That’s the anarchist flag.

          I didn’t see any protesters waving American flags.

          I watched your video and saw no black flags. I also went through the 72 photos lambert linked over at Corrente and did not see any black flags. (If Communists and Anarchists were a significant force in OWS I would expect to see a much larger showing but YMMV.) There were several American flag images, #59 is my fave. And in my cursory research there appear to be just as many authentic American flags as Corporate America flags.

        • gxm17 says:

          Correction: There might be one black flag in the linked images but it’s hard to tell because it’s in the shadows. (And a black flag in the shadows is kinda hard to see.)

        • myiq2xu says:

          This guy must have misplaced his flag:

        • gxm17 says:

          myiq, I’m not seeing the huge infusion of commies and anarchists that you folks are latching on to. I’m seeing a diverse group of Americans who are angry and frustrated, and for good reason. But then I don’t have the same aversion to anarchists you do. (I take it you didn’t like the movie V for Vendetta?) FWIW, anarchists are pretty much always angry and frustrated, for whatever reason. At least the ones I’ve had passing acquaintance with. But some kid wearing a black scarf does not an anarchist make just as someone carrying a communist flag does not a communist make. IMO, most of those folks are carrying what they view as convenient symbols of their displeasure with the current plutocracy. I’m more interested in the fact that a large group of people have been motivated to get off their rears and make some noise. And I’m holding out hope that something good comes of it. We’ll just have to wait and see.

          I received a very interesting email from “democrats.com” in which they are trying to sell me a phone because, ya know, the revolution will be tweeted. Un-freakin’-believable. Now if that ain’t irony, I dunno what is.

        • Three Wickets says:

          Think Anonymous would call themselves anarchists, and they are very big online. Friends of mine have been recruited. Now they’re on the streets.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      This is legitimate too. The part of me that is not skeptical wants something like this to succeed. There is a real problem with obscene wealth, especially when it is “earned” by placing bets against the people who created the society in which you thrive. At a certain point, we end up just like we did in the caveman days, increasingly salivating over the guy holding the lamb chop while we’ve been starving for a long, long time. That guy is going to get it in that scenario if he doesn’t protect himself well.

    • WMCB says:

      gxm, we are not “stereotyping” normal old liberals as ZOMG commie-anarchist-socialists!

      We are pointing out the actual self-professed anarchists, communists, and socialists who are making themselves a very prominent part of this movement.

      If OWS doesn’t want the public to think that’s what they are all about, then here’s a hint: Stop berating the public for unfairly believing their own eyes and ears, and come out strongly rejecting the anti-capitalist, commie, anarchist crap that is spread all over their protest like a stain. Because so far it looks as if no one there has a big problem with it.

      If you are marching beside hammer and sickle flags and anarchist symbols, and don’t seem to be bothered by it in the slightest, then it is not unreasonable hysteria on the part of the public to associate you with that.

      • myiq2xu says:

        OTOH, if you don’t mind being associated with that stuff then don’t complain when people associate you with that stuff.

        I never understood why so many people on the left have a problem with patriotism.

        They talk about their rights but show contempt for the flag of the country that gave them those rights.

        • WMCB says:

          OTOH, if you don’t mind being associated with that stuff then don’t complain when people associate you with that stuff.

          There you go with the logic and reason again. Stop that.

    • catarina says:

      It’s time to return our democracy to the citizens.

      that’s precisely what the Tea Party has been saying.

  13. Lola-at-Large says:

    There’s also an error in logic going on with the OWS group, which there wasn’t necessarily true with the TP. The Tea Party wanted less taxes and less government. Obamacare was the big symbol of government intrusion. Easy enough to understand.

    But with OWS, these kids are running around talking about income inequality and taxing the rich, which a) won’t be enough to resolve the issue of income inequality, and b) those taxes will then go to support a bullshit government that these protesters don’t even like or want.

    This is evident in the latest viral image of a trust fund baby holding a sign saying she is one of the 1% and supported the 99%. Bullshit. If she did, she’d give her money to the government, problem solved. She won’t do that because she actually opposes much of what the government does. So these kids, poor and rich, protesting all this stuff, will have a whole nother set of problems if they actually get what they want. They are protesting for the rich to fund wars, Guantanamo, secret wiretapping, murder of US citizens by secret group, etc.

  14. catarina says:

    On lefty radio this morning, Tom Ashbrook repeatedly asked his OWS guests if they’d continue what they were doing if it would prevent Obama from being elected.

    They babbled, squirmed, bullshitted, mumbled, and tried to change the subject.


    OWS equals OFA and is FOS.

  15. catarina says:

    my comment disappeared and i didn’t even use the f word

  16. catarina says:

    Protests and Power
    Should liberals support Occupy Wall Street?

    And it is just not the protesters’ apparent allergy to capitalism and suspicion of normal democratic politics that should raise concerns. It is also their temperament. The protests have made a big deal of the fact that they arrive at their decisions through a deliberative process. But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals.


    • catarina says:


      In the face of the current challenge from Tea Party conservatism, it is more important than ever that liberals make a compelling case for our vision of America. But we will not make this case stronger by allying with a movement that is out of sync with our values. And so, on the question of how liberals should feel about Occupy Wall Street, count us as deeply skeptical.

    • WMCB says:

      One of the core differences between liberals and radicals is that liberals are capitalists. They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated—that seeks to level an unfair economic playing field so that all citizens have the freedom to make what they want of their lives. But these are not the principles we are hearing from the protesters. Instead, we are hearing calls for the upending of capitalism entirely. American capitalism may be flawed, but it is not, as Slavoj Zizek implied in a speech to the protesters, the equivalent of Chinese suppression


      This is not a statement of liberal values; moreover, it is a statement that should be deeply offensive to liberals, who do not in any way seek the end of capitalism.

      Zizek is not alone. His statement is typical of the anti-capitalist, almost utopian arguments that one hears coming from these protesters.

      ZOMG! The editorial staff of The New Republic have all been brainwashed by Glenn Beck!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • catarina says:

        ignorant wingnuts, every last one of them.

      • djmm says:

        “They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated—that seeks to level an unfair economic playing field so that all citizens have the freedom to make what they want of their lives.”

        Yes. Why is it so hard to find politicians that will act in accordance with these values, which I think many Americans share?


  17. catarina says:

    According to the Boston Herald website, in a story the website says was updated at 8 a.m., Boston Police were moving against a new, more dangerous contingent of protestors: anarchists.

    Davis acknowledged that the arrests marked a shift in the once harmonious relations between the group and the police.

    “The group that was here for the first ten days was working very closely with us,” Davis said, “but they warned us yesterday morning that a new group, the anarchists, wanted to take control.”

    If I read that quote right, Commissioner Davis says the police moved in and made arrest because the Occupy Boston people told the police “anarchists” were moving in with plans to “take control.”


  18. yttik says:

    “The grassroots group known as Occupy Detroit has planned its occupation for Friday — the same day President Barack Obama will visit the Metro area.

    But the group doesn’t plan to protest the president, who will visit General Motors Co.’s Orion Assembly Plant with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to herald the pending U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement.

    “This is not a political protest of any parties,” said Scott Purdy, who’s involved in the Occupy Detroit movement. “We are in solidarity with what’s going on on Wall Street.”

    From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111012/METRO01/110120420/Occupy-Detroit-march-to-coincide-with-Obama-visit#ixzz1ab8I3Gn2

  19. catarina says:

    The sprawling Occupy Boston encampment in downtown has forced the Rose F. Kennedy Greenway Conservancy to call off a food fest long planned for this weekend.

    The “Greenway Mobile Food Fest” set for Saturday has been canceled and won’t be held until the spring, the conservancy announced today.

    “Saturday’s event was to include 12 mobile food vendors, many of them in large trucks. It was to take place on Dewey Square, the only parcel large enough to accommodate this type of gathering,” the conservancy said today in a release.


    why can’t we all just get along?

  20. fif says:

    I remember clearly that Van Jones did an interview several weeks before OWS started, and smugly ‘guaranteed’ that there would soon be a vigorous response to the Tea Party movement. Is that supposed to be a coincidence? C’mon. This has political engineering written all over it. First of all, if they want to protest economic policies, why aren’t they at the Capitol–the real source of legislation and the lack of regulation and enforcement? If we had actual leaders with backbones, Wall St. would not be able to rape and pillage our society. They are attacking the symptoms instead of the cause. It doesn’t pass the smell test for me.

  21. DandyTiger says:

    We now have one of the worst presidents in history, completely owned by wall street and the bankers, presiding over the worst poverty since the great depression. And these OWS protesters aren’t protesting against him? I can’t think of a more obvious indicator of who the organizers really are and what their goals likely are than that. It’s a rather not so subtle hint. But I’m sure any minute now….

  22. Thought TNR’s editorial on OWS was interesting. Pushes back against anarchists and communists but doesn’t challenge Obama. TNR has consistently been strong supporters of the administration. Makes me wonder if they aren’t part of the overall orchestration. I remember earlier this summer MoJo editors were in NYC for some big meetup. Since OWS started, MoJo folks have been directing traffic on the protests from 30,000 feet, always sounding more organized than spontaneous. They’ve been a good barometer anyway of where the thinking left wants to be.

    Lately MoJo has also been pushing back more on Ron Paul, which makes sense to me. If it really is Obama and Romney next year, genuine populists won’t have a voting outlet for their frustration. If there were a populist candidate, third party or otherwise who could appeal to independents, he or she could be a serious threat. Don’t think Ron Paul is that person, but I get why people like MoJo might be concerned and/or curious. Of course the natural populist would have been Palin which explains why she was knee capped by both parties.

Comments are closed.