I Got Your Transparency Right HERE!

Well, we knew it early, and we were among the first to express our skepticism about the Occupy Wall Street protests and their city-occupied cohorts. We’ve spent weeks fleshing out the organizers and analyzing the media response. Now comes Team Obama to announce openly their intentions to co-opt the movement. From The Washington Post:

“We intend to make it one of the central elements of the campaign next year,” Obama senior adviser David Plouffe said in an interview. “One of the main elements of the contrast will be that the president passed Wall Street reform and our opponent and the other party want to repeal it.”

“I’m pretty confident 12 months from now, as people make the decision about who to go vote for, the gut check is going to be about, ‘Who would make decisions more about helping my life than Wall Street?’ ” Plouffe added.

Of course, they’re still pushing the canard that Romney is the one to beat. It’s so interesting to see this transparent administration try to pick its own opponent. Let’s hope GOP voters are wise to it.

Many Democrats consider Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, the greatest threat to Obama when it comes to wooing centrist independents next year, and Romney this week has begun to present himself as a champion of middle-income Americans.

WaPo acknowledges the strategy to co-opt OWS comes with risks for Obama:

But the strategy of channeling anti-Wall Street anger carries risks. Many of Obama’s senior advisers have ties to the financial industry — a point that makes Occupy protesters wary of the president and his party.

We need to hit that data and hit it hard. Maybe a map of the Wall Street connections within the White House? And a reminder of history, of what real populism looks like. Huey Long comes to mind:

They’ve got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen. (1932)

About Woke Lola

Bitch, please.
This entry was posted in 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Corruption, Crony Capitalism, Disingenuous Democrats. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to I Got Your Transparency Right HERE!

  1. WMCB says:

    Yep. Ahem: I said over a week ago that Obama cannot run unless he has an evil other to run against. Community organizers always need a foil to contrast themselves with. In 2008 Hillary and then Bush/Washington were his foils.

    Those foils are no longer useful or effective. So he needs a new one. He can’t run JUST against the R’s, because there is not enough contrast there, and his record compared to theirs sucks ass. And he can’t run against DC when he now IS DC.

    So, what does he do? He stirs up a lot of anger at a nebulous ill-defined enemy (Wall Street), and runs against that. And the morons of OWS are going to help him do it. They are busily setting up his handy foil for 2012 for him.

    And guess what, fleabaggers? Once the appropriate boiling point has been reached, all of the media attention to your protest will turn on a dime, and take all that footage and paint it all as grassroots support of Obama the Champion of WallStreet Reform. You can yell all you want that that’s not what you are about, and no one will hear you. Because you made the choice, guided by some very savvy organizers, to leave Obama out of the recriminations from day one.

    In doing that, you set yourselves up to be used. YOU left the gap for him to swoop into. You’re a political tool. Nothing more.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Obama won’t care, they weren’t never gonna vote for him anyway.

      He’s not after their votes, he’s just using them to get the votes he needs.

      • WMCB says:

        Yep. That’s what they don’t see. It’s not that he is going to try to turn the members of OWS to support and vote for him. He could give a shit about that, and they may be right in asserting they will not do so.

        He’ll just use them to drum up other votes from vaguely discontented people. Just like he used the asbestos case in Chicago. He never did jack about the asbestos, and the original group that fought the asbestos thing ended up not caring for him at all.

        Didn’t matter. It got him visibility and a “champion of the little guy” persona with other voters who had no idea what the asbestos thing was even about. It was THOSE voters he wanted, not the asbestos group.

        His methods are predictable if you know what he’s done before.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        That is true, as evidenced by this paragraph in the article:

        Obama aides point to recent surveys that show anger at Wall Street spanning ideologies, including a new Washington Post-ABC News poll in which 68 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans say they have unfavorable impressions of the big financial institutions.

        Bolding mine…

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          FTR, this is similar to the strategy he used in 2008, when he was pushing his conservative creds with independents by oogling the memory of Reagan and voting for retroactive immunity for corps that violated the Constitution in order to get in good with the government’s efforts to wiretap American citizens. He knew the young and their older progressive cohorts weren’t going anywhere else–he was aiming for independents.

  2. Catfish says:

    OWS announcing their plans to mount a daring third-party challenge in 2014 tells you all you need to know, really.

    • That reminds me of the faux get out the vote efforts to tell people to vote the day after the actual election. A focus on 2014 is so obvious. Come on people.

      OK, coining a new term here. Credit goes to the moose. Where as the Obama zombies are Obots, the OWS zombies are OWBots. Sounds the same, looks the same, tastes the same, is the same.

  3. myiq2xu says:

    the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen. (1932)

    That’s not where they get their own meals though.

  4. Catfish says:

    In doing that, you set yourselves up to be used. YOU left the gap for him to swoop into. You’re a political tool. Nothing more.

    They’re the House Progressive Caucus writ large.

  5. WMCB says:

    OT, but this is getting surreal. Post-Intentional racism. It’s all the new thing!

    Oh, my! Such intellectual coalitions we will form!

    Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson agreed with [MSNBC’s Ed] Schultz’s suggestion [that Herman Cain is gaining support from white racist voters by adopting and repeating their dog-whistle codes] and accused Cain of denying racism for the sake of his “great machinery of self-promotion.” Dyson said that Cain should especially recognize “post-intentional racism” – racism that people don’t intend to have or to act upon.

    “Post-intentional racism.”

    Defined as that racism which resides there in the sub-conscious, and that is only evident when others see it and determine it to be racism.

    In other words, the perception itself (even if it is a politically motivated consensus that claims a politically motivated perception) is evidence of a thought crime — though one committed often unwittingly — because racism is to determined by the group who sees it or susses it out of the “coded language”, not by the intent of those who are to be charged with it.

    I believe this site has finally reached its moment of singularity. Has it? Dare I risk a reader poll…?


  6. dorkle says:

    Well, it isn’t really a surprise.

    However, I doubt it will change the minds of those who believe in the “movement”. They will just make excuses and likely say that movement is too large to be circumvented by Obama (even though it probably started with him and his campaign).

    How could people not see through it?

    First, the whole OWS feels like a staged event that Obama would create; everything that is being said by anyone at any Occupy event sounds like a re-election campaign process. “Oh, who will save us? Save our future? Who will fight for us? Won’t somebody please think of the children.”

    Second, much like in ’08, young people are leading the charge for our future–which always scares the crap outta me because look at the results when youths lead anything. Most of the time, it doesn’t end well and everyone calls it a “learning experience”.

    Third, I really don’t like how they are so in people’s faces. It is a huge turn-off, especially when you’re trying to invoke sympathy.

    As a side, I go to school at CSULB. It is one of the most relaxed campuses. I have seen lately a lot of people wearing OWS buttons and got into an argument over the hypocrisy. I said, “OK… somebody made that and you probably purchased it, so aren’t you participating in the system that you hate so much?” They replied, “It is for a greater purpose, so it isn’t so black and white.” To which I replied, “It is black and white, if you hate the system then don’t participate in it. Go live in a tipi out in the middle of nowhere and sequester yourself. Either you’re a capitalist or you aren’t; there is no in-between.” Everything just spiraled from that point and now some think that I’m a “fucking republican dog.” After that I just flashed the deuces and peaced out.

    • votermom says:

      Third, I really don’t like how they are so in people’s faces. It is a huge turn-off, especially when you’re trying to invoke sympathy.

  7. insanelysane says:

    Let me see if I have this…Campaign on having reformed Wall Street. Take credit for regulations. Yep.

    While as we look around and see the wreckage of lost homes and lost jobs and knowing many of us are one major illness or severe injury away from losing what little we do have, he’s gonna say he did good?
    We see our jobs off- shored with promises to the wealthy that they can bring the money back at a nicely reduced price, again.

    And, So the looting continues….One giant Ponzi that actually works because they can keep fleesing us forever. Campaign money flows like a river.

    He’s taking credit for this? And he thinks that it’s good?

    Major fail.

  8. Catfish says:

    Just posted at The Confluence:

    The chat room moderators are doing an amazing job. There are over 10,000 users logged into the livestream and they are rigorously enforcing the rules wrt political parties, candidates, religion, etc. And lest some people think that is censorship, it’s not. It’s simply necessary to keep attention focussed on the 99% as a group of many different opinions and ideologies that are united by the fact that they are all equally screwed by the 1%.

    I need a stiff drink.

    • If Bush II were still president, wonder if they’d have that same rule about not badmouthing the president?

    • Let’s see, we do hear them badmouth their rivals the Tea Party, which itself is clearly conservative. And there are lots of liberal/progressive issues discussed. So this group is clearly “progressive”. And so the group clearly doesn’t represent the 99% as they claim. Fine and good, they have a leaning towards an approach. Many of us could get on board with that. So why pretend to be otherwise? Why a ban political or policy discussions (whereby policy I mean might conflict with Obama)?

      I’d wager that 90% of the moderating is removing pro Obama or anti Republican rhetoric. OK, maybe 50% where the other 50% is from fleabagger types. 🙂

      Why not deal with the real issues of the last 11 years? Why not admit and deal with the bad things that have happened under Obama and Bush? Why not protest Obama and his administration and what’s happened over the last three years, and Bush before him?

      It’s not like they’re really going to pull in everyone screwed by the 1%. they clearly don’t want to join up with the Tea Party. Don’t blame them. But since they have a particular outlook, why not be honest and transparent and “open”?

    • WMCB says:

      Useful idiots. And quite authoritarian to boot, it seems. If the only thing allowed discussion is “how we are all screwed”, and no politics or political figures are allowed, then what’s the goal?

      Outrage with no specific targets, no concrete suggestions on how to address the problems, and no plan for using the political process to get results, is feel-good wankery and emotion-stoking. But I’m sure the real activists will find all that inchoate passion useful in due time.

      The nebulous but positive emotions of Hope! Change! got him into office once. He figures that the equally nebulous negative emotions of Anger! Injustice! will work for term 2.

      “Anger! Injustice!” is no more a real plan than “Hope! Change!” was. It would be funny to watch these people getting played if it weren’t so sad.

      • Mimi says:

        This is what defines them. They cannot look beyond their own noses and sense of not getting what they deserve. Who determines what they deserve. They do! It is 2008 all over again. It is all predicated on selfishness, entitlement, their growing sense of failure, and presumptions of self worth. Have they gotten a raw deal? Yes and so have all the rest of us but they do not realize this or they do not give a damn. And the fact that they are censoring their open and totally organic movement just shows the same hypocrisy of the Obots screaming down all dissent. Little authoritarians masquerading as anarchists.

    • Three Wickets says:

      Wikipedia can amaze. Was reading this today about the “Strategy of Tension” which is quite interesting. Some Progressive poo-bah on twitter had linked to it.

Comments are closed.