RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "This is an blatant attempt to fracture the 99% into a Democratic Party organization. The leadership of MoveON are Democratic Party operatives. they are divide and conquer pawns. For years they ignored Wall Street protests to keep complete focus on the Republicans, in favor of Goldman's Obama and Wall Street's Democratic leadership."

The New Face on the American 4th estate. (photo: Mat McDermott)
The New Face on the American 4th estate. (photo: Mat McDermott)



OWS Organizers Blast MoveOn

By Washington's Blog

15 October 11

 

Occupy Wall Street: Take the Bull by the Horns


avid DeGraw – one of the primary Wall Street protest organizers – just sent me the following email:

Top MoveOn leaders / executives are all over national television speaking for the movement. fully appreciate the help and support of MoveOn, but the MSM is clearly using them as the spokespeople for OWS. This is an blatant attempt to fracture the 99% into a Democratic Party organization. The leadership of MoveON are Democratic Party operatives. they are divide and conquer pawns. For years they ignored Wall Street protests to keep complete focus on the Republicans, in favor of Goldman's Obama and Wall Street's Democratic leadership.

If anyone at Move On or Daily Kos would like to have a public debate about these comments, we invite it.

Please help us stop this divide and conquer attempt.

DeGraw - who is wholly non-partisan [like the writers at Washington's Blog] - tells me that about half of the protesters are liberals, but the other half are libertarians (and see this.)

This mirrors what one of the original organizers of the "Occupy Trenton" protest told me: MoveOn attempted to set the agenda and pretend it was their event.

As I noted last week:

Everyone’s trying to cash in on the courage and conviction of the Wall Street protesters.

People are trying to associate Occupy Wall Street with their pet projects, in the same way that advertisers try to associate the goodwill of the Super Bowl, NBA playoffs, World Series or Olympics with their product.

But I hear from OWS organizers that the protesters come from totally diverse political affiliations. Many protesters support Ron Paul, many like Obama, others are for other parties or candidates or don’t vote at all.

The protesters themselves are having none of it, tweeting today:

We don’t want to be the democratic tea party or liberal tea party. We want to be our own movement separate of any political affiliation.

Update: Another tweet from the protesters:

We don’t represent liberal interests nor are we the liberal tea party. We represent the interest of the 99%

And as I pointed out Tuesday:

The two main challenges [facing the protesters are]: (1) An attempt by both the Democratic and Republican parties to co-opt it (see this, this and this); and (2) agents provocateur (see this, this and this) [and here].

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+76 # J.Lindsley 2011-10-15 14:21
who's the Divide And Conquor Agent here?
Planting seeds of doubt totally unrelated to the OWS Movement....
They should keep their independence to stop this kind of Koch Brothere operation of whomever!

Stinks to high heaven.
 
 
+4 # Jim Pivonka 2011-10-16 06:34
A circulating film clip, posted earlier end with the statement "Get the money out of politics. That is our one demand. - The 99%" The Occupy Wall Street action has tended to refer to itself as "The 99%" recently. If it is seeking to narrow and sharpen its focus, that would be a good start - if by that they refer to corporate money, to the idea that corporations are people (rather than creations and tools of the state), and to the idea that money is speech.
Let's see if the Koch corporate libertarians - who are reported to make up half of the OWS mobilization group - can agree to those ideas.
 
 
+13 # davidhp 2011-10-17 09:04
I am a part of the 99%, I am also a union representative, here in Occupy Las Vegas, we have been fighting corporate shills called Nevada Policy Research Institute (funded by Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers) trying to say that unions are behind the Occupy Together movement. This is a crock, this movement has people from many different political parties and organizations, but no one organization can co-opt this movement as it is really grassroots. Move On is not a spokesgroup for the Occupy movement, my union is not a spokesgroup for this movement, we speak for outselves as part of the 99% of Americans paying the 1% corporate robber baron's share of the bills of running this country - We want all private money out of politics and let government be run by the people and for the people not corporations. I personally want to see an end to corporate influence which continues to attack social security, medicare, welfare, medicaid, housing assistance, funds multiple imperialistic wars, and neglects our public education system. Neither the Dems or Move-On are going to use this movement to serve their corporate friends issues like never ending wars, bailouts for banks while people are unemployed and losing homes. We will fight for change not change you can believe in that never happens.
 
 
+60 # Toribeth 2011-10-15 14:44
OWS Movement welcomes other groups such as labor, why not Move On? Move On protestors do not carry guns or weapons.
 
 
+76 # CTPatriot 2011-10-15 15:49
Perhaps you have some issues with reading comprehension:

"fully appreciate the help and support of MoveOn, but the MSM is clearly using them as the spokespeople for OWS."

OWS apparently welcomes the support of MoveOn but rejects any attempts by MoveOn, or any other organization, to co-opt and/or claim to speak for the movement. I'm sure they would be just as steamed if any of the unions who support OWS suddenly tried to take it over or appear as though they were the spokesmen.

I hope that clears things up for you.
 
 
-7 # MashingTheGas 2011-10-15 17:30
Clears up the point, but doesn't justify your snark. Lighten up......
 
 
+31 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-15 17:32
CTPatriot, perhaps you have some comprehension problems of your own.

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE: "The leadership of MoveON are Democratic Party operatives. they are divide and conquer pawns."

That doesn't sound very welcoming to me at all, my friend — in fact, it's more like a punch in the face than an outreach. And if you can't read those lines, learn to read BETWEEN those lines.

OWS should also remember that far more members of the Dem Party have supported them, while the Republicans ridicule them.

I hope this clears things up for you.
 
 
+30 # wantrealdemocracy 2011-10-15 18:17
Reductio still sees some space between the Republican party and the Democratic party. It is a space I can't find. Seems they are both the same and the OWS will do best to avoid any contact with the corporately funded parties who are against everything the OWS is all about.
 
 
+15 # Anthony Noel 2011-10-15 19:13
Well said. MoveOn is run by fat Dem cats and exists solely to ensure people vote Democratic. BOTH legacy parties have sold us - the 99 percent - OUT, to the highest bidder and we have orgs like MoveOn and Progressive Democrats of America and the DCCC for the fact that our only choices at election time are "bad" and "worse." VOTING FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS IS STILL A VOTE FOR EVIL.
 
 
+22 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-16 01:37
It's a fate accompli that NOT voting for the lesser of two evils is tantamount to voting FOR the GREATER evil. We're faced with lesser-evil choices our whole lives. It's reality, and to think otherwise is to live in a Pollyanna world.


Without groups like MoveOn (SHOW ME PROOF THEY"RE RUN BY FATCATS!), no one would have known about OWS. I got email after email from many progressive groups asking me to sign petition after petition to prod mainstream news to report on OWS. Without that coverage, OWS would have petered out, and Bloomberg would have cleaned their clock. So OWS is ALREADY beholden to these groups, whether they realize it, or appreciate it, or not. They didn't do it alone. The whole world WASN'T watching — and STILL wouldn't be watching without the support of many liberal groups, made up predominantly of DEMOCRATS.

When the wolf is at the door is NOT the time to clean house, and it's certainly not the time to tear the house down.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2011-10-16 11:31
You'll get what you settle for...more corporate whores (sorry prostitutes...t hey really are much worse than you).
 
 
+9 # RLF 2011-10-16 11:29
jWho cares? Move on have become nothing but Democratic party apologists and operatives so screw them. The Dems think that we will all vote for them because everything else is worse...well I've got news for them...I've been stabbed in the back for the last time and I don't care who gets in but I WILL NOT vote Dem again until they get off the corporate teat.
 
 
+4 # racp 2011-10-17 10:04
This is the opportunity to start taking them of the corporate teat. 1) Vote for the candidates that think like you, support them, and kick out of office those who do not. And if they cannot change everything in 4 years, 2) keep supporting them and repeat step 1. But remember, they will need money to fight back... what are YOU doing about it? With the current breed of republicans, less than control of the house and 60+ senators (not counting blue dogs) means you can't pass anything.
 
 
+18 # John Talbutt 2011-10-15 19:18
The comment about welcoming the help did not outway all the negative implications about MoveOn. If you are trhying to build a moment pleas avoid being snide.
 
 
+75 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-15 16:56
I agree; organizations like MoveOn have been fighting the good fight since some of the OWS were in diapers. If the OWS group thinks they can do this all by themselves, then they're truly clueless.

And I find the oft-heard whine of "both parties are equally to blame" growing ever more irksome, tedious, tiresome and absolutely wrong and self-defeating. Al Capone and a pickpocket are both crooks, but in no way are they equivalent crooks.

It would be much easier to reform the Democratic Party than to start from scratch, That's a pragmatic REALITY. Just as the Tea Party took the Republicans further down into the gutter; the OWS movement, MoveOn, and the literally HUNDREDS of other true-believer liberal/progres sive organizations can return the Democratic Party to the party it's SUPPOSED to be — JUST AS SOON AS WE, TOGETHER, DEFEAT THE PARTY THAT'S TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA.

And if OWS has time to pick territorial arguments, they certainly have time to formulate some specific demands so they don't come across as so moon-beamy directionless. Anyone who's been paying attention could do this in five minutes.
 
 
+34 # PGreen 2011-10-15 18:58
As David Rushkoff wrote, "unlike a political campaign designed to get some person in office and then close up shop (as in the election of Obama), this is not a movement with a traditional narrative arc. As the product of the decentralized networked-era culture, it is less about victory than sustainability."
I'm not sure that specific demands from OWS are strategically appropriate at this time. I do think that it is appropriate for other groups such as Unions and Move-On to make specific demands (eg, medicare for all or a doubled minimum wage) and reference OWS as representing the economic interests of 99% of the country. When the outrage of the 99% public majority, OWS, is apparent, it actually makes the argument of such groups for related agenda items much stronger.
 
 
+4 # jimyoung 2011-10-15 23:43
I like the open nature, with each speaker in the stack getting three minutes where I was. It is great practice in developing the most effective way to get each citizens personal interest exposed to a polite and friendly audience, that can help develop persuasive ways to present it, or to co-develop better ways of seeing what it would take to get actionable consensus positions. I'd hope that they might find a way to develop follow up interest groups that closely monitor after actions (elections or passage of a law)as a sustainable way to keep the public apprised of substantial changes from intended purpose. I'm thinking of the past creation of toothless watchdogs, underfunded, or otherwise incapable of performing the intended purpose (FERC, SEC, CFTC, and most recently CFPB, which takes the cake for the most hamstrung).

I spoke up for accountability, as the What Next California Group (see PBS's By the People), but hope using "accountability " wasn't taken as through legal means. I'd rather have it simply through a score card, comparing what they said they intended with actual results. If they consistently miss the marks, It should be an indication of how trustworthy their "judgement" is. I've found a trusted source in the Sunlight Foundation, but the results should be grouped to reveal sponsored alliances like the American Legislative Exchange Council, et al.
 
 
0 # Anthony Noel 2011-10-15 19:15
WALOC. People have been trying to "reform" this irretrievable joke of a party for 40 years. The effort got JFK killed. Wake up.
 
 
+1 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-16 01:23
We can all imagine what this country would be like without "this irretrievable joke of a party for 40 years." I'm wide awake; maybe you're the one who's dreaming.
 
 
0 # Beth 2011-10-16 10:41
uuummm - not dreaming - living a nightmare - talk about snide...
 
 
+5 # RLF 2011-10-16 11:33
And you support a party that is to the right of Raygun at this point...who needs it?
 
 
+8 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-16 13:52
WE need it, otherwise the party that's to the right of Attila the Hun will win, thanks in large part to the complicity of the "I'm so disappointed in Obama" whiners.

History is riddled with hold-your-nose coalitions entered into for the greater good. We allied with Russia to defeat Hitler. How do you think that would have gone had we not teamed up with Stalin, a monster as equally monstrous as Hitler?
 
 
+7 # Anthony Noel 2011-10-16 15:24
You're right - more lesser evilism will make things BETTER, because it has clearly done so, sooooo effectively, thus far! As the Python boys would say, I will taunt you a second time: WALOC.

The NDP in Canada is the perfect example of how kicking BOTH neolibs and neocons where they belong - to the curb - is the most prudent, expedient way of changing things for the better. If we are not voting for the country we want, we shouldn't be surprised by the fact that we don't have it.

OWS could be the beginning of the end for the legacy parties. Let's hope so.
 
 
+5 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-16 18:30
So instead of marshaling existing forces to defeat the most dangerous party (whose victory would be devastating and is now about a 50-50 chance), YOU suggest defeating both parties with a "party" that does not now exist, and to do it all within a year — because if you don't do it by the 2012 elections, and the Republicans win, they will do everything in their power to establish a permanent Republican majority, just like they tried during the Bush Admin.

I know of a guy who just LOVES the way you think. His name is Karl Rove.
 
 
+6 # Anthony Noel 2011-10-16 19:52
Laugh at Rove if you choose, but if the Democratic Party had opted to be the "fierce defenders" (to coin a phrase) of Progressive principles in equal measure to the GOP defense of conservative ones all these years, we wouldn't be in this mess.

#OWS gets that. You, apparently, don't.

With the GOP, we at least know what to expect. Obama and he Democratic Party, OTOH, regularly give lip service - only - to truly Progressive principles at election time, then blame "GOP obstruction" when they control both Congress and the WH for not passing anything (like REAL health insurance reform), and of course say the can't pass anything when they don't control both branches. So, despite the "D" behind his name, Obama might as well be a Republican. Now tell me again - which is really worse, Reductio?

Answer: BOTH. Again, take a look at Canada's NDP to learn the importance of NOT COMPROMISING.
 
 
+6 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-17 13:52
Thanks for the history lesson, but it doesn't mean squat right now, and NEWS FLASH: THIS AIN'T CANADA!

Obama doesn't control the Congress. The Dems from the South might as well be Republicans, they're so conservative. Yeah, yeah, we know that. The filibuster in the Senate meant we NEVER had effective control of the Senate. Yet, major accomplishments were made without the vote of a single Republican. I'm just as pissed as you are about lost opportunities, but I'm realistic enough to know that the game is over is we lose the White House and Congress. Your "bring the temple down upon us" bravado is reckless, and it will hurt millions of Americans in uncountable ways — just like Bush's decade of disaster did.

Here's the REALITY: If the Republicans win big in 2012, it's game over, and all you "take my ball and go homers" will be complicit.

Primary Obama, I don't care, or elect him and start on 2016, but we have to defeat the Republicans the best way we have, and that's through the established organization of the Dem Party. After 2012, you'll have two years before the midterms to build a third party that can actually win.

There is something far worse than not compromising — losing to the Republicans. Remember, Karl Rove is counting on you to do something real stupid.
 
 
+18 # robkill 2011-10-16 09:06
You make some valid points here, but I think the danger of OWS aligning too quickly with either existing party (most likely the Democrats, for all their flaws) far outweighs any benefit.

The OWS movement has succeeded in mobilizing support precisely because of its non-affiliation -- not because it's drawing equally on "both sides", but because so many people feel profoundly betrayed by Obama and the Dems, their hopes raised and then dashed. Though they may (and probably should) eventually generate some concrete proposals, and seek to enact them via influence on the existing parties, the energy of all these justifiably disillusioned people can only be engaged by a thoroughly nonpartisan movement.

OWS needs to remain free to attract the disaffected and the disenchanted, and to give voice to a common outrage that cannot be expressed within the deeply compromised halls of the existing political system. Indeed, OWS erupted out of that broad inchoate frustration -- if the existing channels worked, people wouldn't be camping out in parks.
 
 
+3 # davidhp 2011-10-17 09:11
Then tell me why American soldiers still die in Iraq and Afghanistan along with thousands of civilians; why the president has appointed so many corporate Goldman Sachs people as advisors, why banks were bailed out and the people losing houses were abandoned. You apologists for the two corporately owned parties sicken me, it reminds me of the old song and dance of getting the pie in the sky when you die. No more this grassroots movement will fight until we stop corporate money from dominating both parties to insure the robber barons remain untouchable and the working class people die in their wars and by their political and economic strangle hold on the government.
 
 
+48 # PGreen 2011-10-15 18:33
As I understand the article (and as has also been said elsewhere), OWS welcomes the support of other groups as long as they understand that these groups are supporting OWS, not the other way around. The latter could potentially become an attempt to co-opt the movement, making it a wing of the Democratic party (which it is not). It isn't a question of Move-On not being allowed to join in-- of course they are allowed. But OWS is properly keeping the focus on economic inequality, and seems to be leery of other groups which might shift that focus-- or be satisfied with less-- speaking for them. Remember that the Democratic party receives quite a lot of funding from Wall Street.
I think it is fascinating that the establishment media started carrying the story more prominently once the Democratic party (and other establishment groups, perhaps including Move-On) indicated that the OWS movement might be useful. Just a thought. to their own interests. Just a thought.
 
 
+62 # rmelcher 2011-10-15 14:48
....and we watch as the left turns, as it always does, into a circular firing squad. While you spend your time calling out one another on the basis of ideological impurity those in power can quietly chuckle, and go back to work.
 
 
+42 # CTPatriot 2011-10-15 15:52
Except that OWS is not "the left". OWS includes people of all stripes. OWS is the 99%. MoveOn represents the left (at least when it is not acting as a tool of the Democratic Party) and, while a welcome supporter of OWS, has no more right to speak for the movement than do the unions, or any other supportive organization. OWS is smart to keep all such organizations at arms length.
 
 
+16 # X Dane 2011-10-15 17:17
CTPatriot. I think the OWS fail to realize that without some clear goals they will get nowhere and fizzle, just as the right PREDICTS and HOPES. The Tparty had goals....bad ones,..... but as we see it panned out for them, to the detriment of us.

The OWS should formulate some CLEAR DEMANDS. That way they could be effecting change next election.

If the demands are CLEAR and expressed AGAIN and AGAIN. We can see who in congress will work to implement them and who we should vote for.
Otherwise it is a BIG WASTE OF MANY PEOPLE'S EFFORTS AND HOPES.
 
 
+34 # tclose 2011-10-16 11:56
Here is a list of demands from Occupy Chicago, fyi:
1. Pass a bill to reinstate Glass-Steagall, a safeguard separating banks' commercial lending and investment operations. "Its repeal in 1999 is considered the major cause of the global financial meltdown of 2008-09," the group states.
2. Repeal Bush-era tax cuts.
3. Prosecute "the Wall Street criminals who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis."
4. Overturn a 2010 Supreme Court decision that allows corporations "to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns."
5. Pass the Warren Buffett rule on fair taxation, close corporate tax loopholes, prohibit hiding funds offshore.
6. Give the Securities and Exchange Commission stricter regulatory power, strengthen the Consumer Protection Bureau and help victims of predatory lending whose home loans have been foreclosed.
7. Take steps to limit the influence of lobbyists and eliminate the practice of lobbyists writing legislation.
8. Eliminate (the) right of former government regulators to work for corporations or industries they once regulated.
9. Eliminate corporate personhood.
10. Insist the Federal Elections Commission "ensure that political candidates are given equal time for free at reasonable intervals during campaign season."
11. Pass the Fair Elections Now Act.
12. Forgive student debt.
 
 
+3 # tclose 2011-10-16 12:48
Source for this is:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-occupy-chicago-demands-sidebar-20111016,0,4272482.story
 
 
+6 # X Dane 2011-10-16 14:22
BRAVO, tclose. Now we are getting somewhere, these demands I think most of us can get behind. Let's see how we can get them implemented.
 
 
+6 # warrior woman 2011-10-16 16:04
Let's add 13. Address climate change.
 
 
0 # Anthony Noel 2011-10-15 19:17
Not always. www.newprogs.org
 
 
+59 # BettyFaas 2011-10-15 14:49
This is a divisive article. Who knows who the authors of those tweets are. These kinds of articles do more damage than they do good perhaps.
 
 
+65 # jsheats 2011-10-15 15:00
Well, how wonderful - let's have a nice internecine war and destroy the effectiveness of all parties...

Whether the OWS "movement" accepts it or not, they are a political force, and political power is exercised at the ballot box in this country. (In some places you still need a gun; I am not aware of other options.) So I'm not very excited about OWS adherents who "don't vote at all".

If OWS people think they can form a new political party and win elections, I'd say good luck, but I am not betting on it. This country has not had multiple parties since near its birth. However,the principles of the existing parties HAVE morphed over time due to the pressure of people working in them.

The 99% symbol is a nice rhetorical gambit, but I presume no one seriously thinks they are going to get 99% of the voters to agree with them. "We" (progressives in general) CAN, however, reclaim the principles of the Democratic party, and internal pressure is what is needed. I salute the OWS activists for doing this. They will be of zero value if they think they don't need political parties (and it ain't gonna be the Republicans).
 
 
+37 # moh2o 2011-10-15 16:34
Uh, it is not about the power of the ballot box...our democracy does not work anymore. It is the power of the dollar that rules the day. As long as it is legal and constitutional to give money to politicians, these same injustices will prevail regardless of the party in power.
 
 
+23 # MashingTheGas 2011-10-15 17:18
"......Uh, it is not about the power of the ballot box.....our democracy does not work anymore."..... puhlease....

Like it or not, this country is driven by the results of what happens at the ballot box. Unless and until another system for determining how public policy effects the lives of the citizens in this country replaces it, the ballot box is your only opportunity to make a difference. If you think those Wall Street folks literally sipping champagne and holding up signs saying "We are the 1%" are going to cave to peer pressure, you're far more naive than you're being portrayed in the media.

If not for bringing public attention to how Wall Street is systematically robbing this country and its citizens blind for the purpose of making a difference at the ballot box, OWS and its related offshoots are nothing more than whining and wallowing and self-pity. Please, moh20s, get real.

Pick your central issues, articulate your goals and speak to them. Randomly illustrating ad nauseum the various personal stories about how everyone's getting hosed isn't going to cut it. Identify specific measures Congress can pass to eliminate the conditions that are causing misery across the country. Otherwise you just look just as unhinged and rudderless at the Tea Party.
 
 
+41 # moh2o 2011-10-15 19:29
Once again, our Democracy is broken. I worked hard getting Democrats elected...and the same shiite, different flavor gets passed, ie no single payer, no real Wall ST regulation etc. Congress cannot fix it, because they are part of the problem. It will take a Constitutional Assembly to bypass Congress and ammend the Constitution to outlaw legalized bribery...I would say publicly financed elections with contributions over $100 illegal. Taking personhood away from corporations would also be a good idea. $ should not equal speech, because that means that poor people are effectively speechless in this "Democracy". Fyi, I am not OWS, just a concerned citizen who feels like this is an opportune time, with high energy and visibility nationwide to take the ball and run with a Constitutional Assembly and ammend the Const. If the money can be taken out of politics, then to a large degree, legislation will reflect what the people need and want rather than that which is currently written by corporations, name your big money villain-Big Bank, Oil, Pharma, Insurance, Ag...they write the laws that affect them. This one Demand could address all the wrongs in time. I just want our Democracy back.
 
 
+27 # ruttaro 2011-10-15 21:12
Quoting moh2o:
This one Demand could address all the wrongs in time. I just want our Democracy back.

You are so right! Thank you for your insight! We cannot address climate change, food insecurity, poverty, education, etc. as long as money controls the agenda and buys the representatives . The constitutional amendment - which we the people have the right and now obligation to do - is the only way to turn a corrupt system beholden to money into a system where ideas can be debated and votes become the only currency of the system. The amendment would return representative government back to the people and oblige it to be responsive to the people.
Without the constitutional amendment, nothing we care about will be addressed.
 
 
+8 # swissms 2011-10-16 06:56
Now THERE is a platform I can get behind. Nice and clear and simple. OWS, how about that for a central demand?!
 
 
+15 # robkill 2011-10-16 08:51
Agree agree agree. The most glaring error made by the drafters of the Constitution -- and "error" made intentionally by many of them, over the objections of a few -- was the failure to restrict the influence of money on the political system. Some progress was made in that direction during the 19th century, with the removal of property requirements for voting and holding of office, but we're deeper in the mire now than anyone then might have imagined. It's long past time for some major structural change, such as the kind of Constitutional amendment you suggest. We amended that document an average of once every 11 years or so until the 1970s -- it was not and is not meant as some sort of sanctified Scripture with which mere mortals ought not to interfere. So let's amend it again, and correct this gaping hole through which the power of money thrusts its fist.
 
 
+2 # RLF 2011-10-16 11:38
The other thing that occurs to me is that if money is not given then they will be giving valuable jobs after public 'service'...How do we stop that?
 
 
+25 # ruttaro 2011-10-15 16:36
I agree. A third party movement at this stage is folly simply because the way our elections are financed and function makes it nearly impossible to break the two party stranglehold. However, as you say, working within the parties can redirect them to a different orientation and we have seen this in the recent past with both (Tea Party and fundamentalists in GOP; the DLC in the Democratic Party). Of the two, the Democratic Party, once the Party of the People, is most susceptible to change in the direction the OWS supporters would like. OWS activists give hope with their courage but we need to make a political party accountable to them. It won't happen if we remain in Zucotti Park, literally or virtually. There are millions of Americans who are out there in other parts of the country - millions! If we make sure that 1) we all register and 2) align our votes with OWS activists, neither political party can ignore that power. It is that potential that makes the Titans tremble and plutocrats pee their pants.
 
 
+18 # jsheats 2011-10-15 17:25
The reason a third party cannot work here is because of our cherished "division of power", with separate presidential elections (as opposed to the parliamentary system used throughout Europe). A vote for a third party is almost certainly "wasted", because one cannot grow a winning party in 4 years.

However, the important point is about money. Today, politics has been reduced to fundraising and 30 second TV sound bites. The antidote to the Citizens United court decision is door-to-door & town-hall scale education, and GETTING OUT THE VOTE! Which is where we totally agree. There is no place in a democracy for non-participati on: voting is an absolute, sacred duty above just about everything else.

I will give you a hint to my age: I lived through the activism of the 60s. And it was not in vain: it did not bring about the Age of Aquarius, let alone Nirvana, but it made a difference. But it has to ultimately be at the voting booth.
 
 
+15 # Anthony Noel 2011-10-15 19:26
Nope, sorry. We've got the tail on the wrong end of the dog in this country when it comes to politics, and that goes for BOTH parties. What's needed is the will to kick to the curb ANY candidate or elected official who does not serve the stated needs of the people. OWS is working - quite beautifully to state those needs in plain terms. Lord have mercy on any pol who claims to put people before profits and fails to act accordingly when in office - exactly what both Dems and Republicans have done for the past 40 years. THAT'S the message here.
 
 
0 # RLF 2011-10-16 11:36
(and it ain't gonna be the Democrats)
 
 
+1 # davidhp 2011-10-17 09:22
There are other ways to generate political power besides voting and revolution. Ever here of a general strike, a labor-student general strike almost overthrew the French government in the 60's.
 
 
+77 # rsstein 2011-10-15 15:02
I am a member of MoveOn and also approve of the OWS movement, and I agree that one should keep these separate. The OWS group is wise not to associate itself with any particular party, and I find it refreshing to see people depart from lethargy and express concern about some of the harmful forces in society. I feel both major parties Are at fault, and am currently undecided as to whether to work for changes in them or support a third party. I am waiting to observe the responses to the OWS efforts,
 
 
+10 # X Dane 2011-10-15 17:27
rsstein. a third party is a SURE way of electing a republican senate and president. Have you already forgot that Ralph Nader got us Bush?????????????????
OWS need CLEAR demands and need to PRESSURE democrats. repubs certainly will not do us any good.
 
 
+1 # Phlippinout 2011-10-15 21:09
Ralph Nader did not give us Bush! The supreme court did! As a democrat i can tell you now, there is no way in hell that i will vote for Obama again. I have no problem voting for someone who has no chance of winning but has more of my values. The people who voted for Nader have a right to their opinion. I voted for Obama and I am so very sorry, I thought he was the lesser of the two evils but he is right down there with the dirtiest of them all! Vote how you wish but dont expect the rest of us to feed into the same old threat.
 
 
+1 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-16 10:19
Do the math. Had Nader not run, Florida very likely would have gone to Gore with an un-contestable margin, unless you believe that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Bush — highly unlikely.

Your disappointment in Obama is understandable, but your vilification of him is unwarranted. I ask you to imagine this country with McCain as president. Hillary would never have gotten healthcare through, even though none of us are thrilled with single-payer being taken off the table.

Like I said in an earlier post, if you don't vote for the lesser evil, you ensure the greater evil will win. Life gives us lesser-evil choices every day.
 
 
+4 # Beth 2011-10-16 11:07
Thank you fightback - Nader did NOT get us Bush Katherine Harris/Supreme Court/chicken democrat senators refusing to stand with Congressional Black Caucus members, money, money (did I say money?), rigged voting which lead to even worse rigged voting (can you say electronic voting machines with NO paper back up so no re-count)and Jeb! gave us dubya - I sure as hell won't vote or work for obama again, seriously I would have rather had palin as prez, (yes, mccain ran, but palin would have been prez within a VERY short period of time...) at least the lunacy would have already been unveiled and these foolish discussions about it being better to choose the lesser of the two evils and whether or not there actually is any difference between republicans and republicans lite would not be occurring.

We have a interesting time ahead...if I could afford it, I would have left this sinking ship years ago...
 
 
+4 # Anthony Noel 2011-10-16 19:55
WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN SENATE, HOUSE AND WH NOW!! Just because these criminals have D's behind their names doesn't mean they hold with truly Progressive values! FDR wouldn't even RECOGNIZE the Democratic Party of today.
 
 
+25 # Glen 2011-10-15 15:27
There is the Ghandi scenario, there is divide and conquer, then there is absorption. Absorption has been a technique of past civilizations and their conquering techniques. Occupy and breed, or whatever it takes to gain co-operation of those occupied.

Yep, the tea party was absorbed and labeled after they were absorbed. So much for a citizen protest. Go back and check out what happened to the "hippies" and counter culture movement. All who protested or "dropped out" were copied, mimicked, disappeared, or absorbed. No more protests.

Wall Street Protesters are smart to resist influence from outside organizations. I dumped MoveOn once they morphed into a political group rather than their initial endeavors.
 
 
+17 # josephhill 2011-10-15 17:40
Amen, Glen...'We The People' must NOT fall prey to those 'stealth' "Democrats" whose first loyalty is to the DNC, rather than to OWS. We must not sell our souls to the Party that has become nothing more than Republican-Lite . The DNC is a large part of the PROBLEM, and NO part of the SOLUTION.
 
 
+5 # Glen 2011-10-16 06:46
joseph, it is good to read postings by anyone who recognizes the truth of the DNC. A poster has stated that it would be better to revamp the DNC than to eliminate it, but most folks don't understand just how huge and powerful the parties and government are (not to mention corporations and military).
 
 
+8 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-16 10:27
The people IN the Democratic party — the rank and file Democrats — far outnumber their leadership. I belong to a Dem township club, and they're just as angry with the party over certain issues. They would vote for a more-progressiv e party in a heartbeat. But many of them are old liberals from way back, and they're smart enough to know that the surest way to give this country over the theo-fascists, is to splinter the Republican's only viable opposition, namely the Democratic Party.
 
 
+2 # Glen 2011-10-17 10:44
Therein lies the problem, Reductio. There are ONLY two choices, and it isn't just tradition that restricts alternatives. The parties represent those who are truly in power, meaning corporations, extremely wealthy, Wall Street, the military, neo-cons, neo-liberals. Voting means nothing in the grand scheme, as many found out in 2008.

U.S. citizens have already been divided, even within the parties because that is an effective weapon against us. Choices are limited and we are the losers. And - nobody in this country runs for president without the approval of those I mentioned above. Nobody.
 
 
+52 # diacad 2011-10-15 15:35
Who is DeGraw? How is he sure "about half of the protesters are liberals, but the other half are libertarians"? Has he taken a poll?
 
 
+24 # joestecher 2011-10-15 15:43
While I appreciate that OWS does not want to be associated with a particular political party, if they really wish to achieve change, they need to reach out, not pursh away those who wish to join in the push. Otherwise, those who oppose wil use these sorts of comments to sow divisiveness and destory the good that has already been acheived.
 
 
+11 # josephhill 2011-10-15 17:50
MoveOn (and the Dem Party they are married to) have interests that are exactly contrary to the interests of the 99% who have spent the past 35+ years waiting for the Dems to promote a progressive agenda.

Most of us, I suspect, are sick and tired of being chumped by the Dems and their cynical "Lesser Evil-ism" strategy. It's time to "serious up" and cast a pox on "BOTH" these corporatist parties! If not now, WHEN? If not us, WHO?
 
 
+1 # mjc 2011-10-15 15:46
Move On never got over blantly support Barack Obama for the presidency and it stinks even more for them now that it looks like Obama has and perhaps always was more Republican, conservative Republican, than a liberal or even centrist Democrat.
 
 
+9 # sheraphics 2011-10-15 15:48
Now I'm really confused. I was wanting to be involved. I thought it would support what the Democrats would like to do , but can't due to the Congress, etc. These are their beliefs, but are not tough enough to fight for them and afraid of what the Republicans will turn this around to, like this is Socialism, anti business or something stupid. We give them the support then I think they will fight for us.
 
 
+14 # josephhill 2011-10-15 18:10
"We give them the support then I think they will fight for us."
---

Dream on! It was Congressional Democrats who gave Bush a blank check to wage war against anybody--or any nation state--he decided was a TERRORIST. Hence the bogus war against Iraq AND the continuing war in Afghanistan. These were the same Dems who voted overwhelmingly and slavishly for the so-called "PATRIOT Act"--an Act that Obama has made use of to assassinate American citizens with impunity.

I am tired of having NO ONE to represent the PEOPLE'S interests in Washington. Granted, there are a handful of genuinely progressive Dems in Congress; but they have become estranged from the hacks who are more interested in winning elections (i.e., "Power) than in doing what's right for the citizenry. I encourage everybody to vote for the Kuciniches, the McDermotts, the Feingolds and any other Dems with the integrity and courage to stand up to partisan pressure from those who have become the "property" of Goldman-Sachs and the rest of the corporate moles who have found their way into the Obama White House.
 
 
+32 # dloehr 2011-10-15 16:02
As a non-doctrinal theologian, I see these occupants through a religious lens. Throughout history, there have been -- or not been -- the gods, those who claim to speak for the gods, those who don't care about them, and those rare few (whom we later call prophets) who are offended by all the religions, orthodoxies, creeds and rituals because they can feel the deep inadequacy of all religions, when the kind of allegiance that calls us is far bigger than the atheists, priests and gods could ever be. The WSO folks -- and those all over the world who are following their lead -- are speaking on behalf of the soul of humanity. They have planted a seed, now beginning to blossom in billions of people everywhere, because our cannibalistic capitalism is everywhere selling out humans in the name of greed. These protestors remind me of the best definition of a prophet I've ever read, by Karl Kraus: "I hear noises which others do not hear. And those noises spoil for me the music of the spheres -- which others don't hear either."
 
 
+9 # josephhill 2011-10-15 18:11
AMEN...and thanks for the great quote, dloehr.
 
 
+60 # ruttaro 2011-10-15 16:16
I have no reason to doubt that the people who have captured global attention wish to remain independent. They should. But I'm afraid that occupation alone is not enough. They have articulated the feelings of millions of people around the world but the power structure that has wrecked the lives of millions and has the lives of the remaining 99% in their control will remain in place if tactics continue as is. Occupying Zucotti Park is a demonstration and expression of frustration, anger and rage as much as it offers a vision of a better, more just, fair world. But having said that, OWS needs to step it up to the next level.
The Master of the Universe, the power elites know a dark truth: as long as OWS continues as is so will the vile control of the financial elites and the corporations; the plutocracy will remain in power. Thus the next step should be the dismantling of the corporate power structure that governs us. How? We should form a political movement where we pledge our votes only to candidates who will introduce in Congress a Constitutional Amendment that makes all public elections publicly funded. We should be as resolved to that purpose as the NRA is to anti-gun control, the fundamentalists are to anti-abortion and Republicans are to no tax increases. Our votes are our weapon; let's pledge them to this cause. I can't think of a better expression of solidarity.
 
 
+14 # MashingTheGas 2011-10-15 17:20
Best response I've read on this thread. Excellent. If we were on HuffPo I'd F+F you.
 
 
+14 # Anthony Noel 2011-10-15 19:20
ditto!
 
 
+14 # X Dane 2011-10-15 17:39
Absolutely ruttaro. OWS definitely need to take it to the next level. We should also join "get money out of politics: (dot com) And one important demand HAS TO BE. BREAK UP THE BIG BANKS, for when they FAIL. WE ALL DO.
 
 
+18 # ruttaro 2011-10-15 21:01
I did join after a previous post you sent on a different report. First, I like their amendment. However, I don't think signing an electronic petition is the right tactic. I'm not condemning the initiative but feel that at the end of the day, an electronic petition can garner 300,000 signatures and it still does not challenge the power structure. It amounts to us shouting "Please stop" at those who are pressing our necks under their boots. Instead we need to build on those signatures as well as everyone who supports what OWS are doing. We need to turn into a political movement with power of the kind that the plutocrats understand. With our votes backing only candidates who pledge to submit this amendment on the first day and fight for a constitutional convention, we can begin cutting off the lifeblood of the sociopaths who control our institutions. I cannot see how else we can translate our numbers into a mighty force with credible power to dismantle the very foundation of this corrupt system. Now is the time because Obama has a real fight on his hands and the Democrats are in danger of losing the Senate. To ignore us now is to write their own obituaries.
The plutocrats are counting on the weather to wear OWS activists down. They believe that time is on their side. We cannot let our young heroes down. Not now.
 
 
+11 # X Dane 2011-10-15 22:36
I aggree ruttaro, but I am sure Dylan Rattigan is not going to stop with just the petitions. He is woking on an ammendment to the constitution, to get the money out of government and elections. He was working in the finance sector. (We can google him and see exactly in what caspacity)
He is just as flaming mad as the rest of us.
We need to start somewhere. I do hope he is able to get things going.

I feel as you do, that we have to be a really big movement, that is why I think the OWS HAVE to formulate some clear demands, BEFORE it gets so cold that the people need to find shelter.

The thought of the senate being republican is sickening. And another republican president scares the daylight out of me.
WE MUST STAND TOGETHER. THE REPUBLICANS ARE COUNTING ON US ATTACKING EACH OTHER. PLEASE DO NOT PROVE THEM RIGHT
 
 
+2 # Earl 2011-10-16 13:44
We need to turn into a political movement with power of the kind that the plutocrats understand. With our votes backing only candidates who pledge to submit this amendment on the first day and fight for a constitutional convention"

Yeah, well I voted for Obama based on his pledges for change. But it ain't happened.
 
 
+3 # ruttaro 2011-10-16 15:21
True and Obama has not been the change agent he said he wanted to be replacing hope with disappointment. But I am not calling for an Obama endorsement. There is a clear difference this time around. In 2008, Obama told us what he was going to do. We voted for him and gave our trust. In 2012, we tell every candidate for office - House, Senate and Presidency - that they have to pledge to introduce the amendment and call for a constitutional convention (forget state ratification as the Republicans are already stacking state houses with Tea Party kind)on the first day. Any candidate refusing to do so, does not get our vote. Period. No matter what else she or he stands for because as long as money is rotting our political institutions, all other promises are meaningless. If all candidates refuse, then we write in the name of someone who will. If the candidate pledges to introduce the amendment and work for it on day one, she/he gets our vote. This may be tough for some because of other policies the candidate stands for but we have to remain firm. Now if the candidates who pledge and then don't deliver, we promise to a) vote against them next time around regardless and b) run our own candidate from our ranks. We could even start that now but the system is what it is at this point with money still in the system.
 
 
+3 # ruttaro 2011-10-16 15:34
As to the Presidential contest, the candidates have to pledge to support it with fervor but I think Presidential power is strictly limited in this case. They can support it but the power to amend the constitution lies in the Congress. Nevertheless, this time around Obama or Cain or Romney or whoever would have to pledge to support and work for it or they don't get our vote. We can write in a candidate of our choice. If once in office they betray that pledge, then we vote against them next time.
This can work only if the millions of us stand firm and committed to this goal - as committed as the NRA is to anti-gun control and Republicans to no new taxes. No politician in his or her right mind would dare to ignore millions of votes especially this coming election, the most critical in recent history.
 
 
+19 # josephhill 2011-10-15 18:17
It gladdens my heart to know that so many among us have seen through the media bullsh*t about 'bi-partisanshi p' and how much we have been conditioned to accept the 'status quo'. WE have the power to unseat all these poor excuses for public officials.
 
 
+4 # swissms 2011-10-16 07:05
Some of us are just exhausted having tried to "unseat...poor excuses for public officials" and then not seen the changes we worked for. Time for a bigger change!
 
 
+16 # jsheats 2011-10-15 19:13
I agree with these sentiments in general, but there may be a much simpler way to achieve the goal. TV ads, which are intellectually as close to a pure vacuum as one can get, absorb the vast majority of campaign money (I'll bet >95%).

Instead of public funding of this drivel, how about requiring TV stations to provide equal time to all candidates for office: free, or at a "cost only" rate (perhaps reimbursed by the government), as a condition for their license to use the public airwaves? This would not only eliminate most of the demand for money but vastly improve the quality of debate at the same time.

Where we need a constitutional amendment is in eliminating the "personhood" of corporations. Now that is something to get people behind!
 
 
+7 # X Dane 2011-10-15 23:18
jsheats. You WOULD think that the TV stations SHOULD provide free airtime for the top candidates. Are the airwaves not supposed to be free??

Congress also need to find a way to overturn or counter that damned citizens united. We have NO idea who is stealing our elections, for since the pacs do not have to disclose where the money comes from. it could be China or Saudi Arabia..... OR ....Who knows??
 
 
+3 # swissms 2011-10-16 07:06
Amen to that!
 
 
+15 # moh2o 2011-10-15 19:37
I agree with the Constitutional Ammendment part, but I doubt that Congress can give us a workable one. I am of the opinion that OWS could be the organizing force behind a Constitutional Assembly that would push such an ammendment, and perhaps also outlaw corporate personhood, or at least have corporate accountability to society above stockholders.
 
 
+4 # swissms 2011-10-16 07:02
See above comments. Many of us are just plain frustrated using our vote to create change in government and then seeing things go nowhere. Once in the government system, even our idealistic candidates fall prey to monied corporate interests. The laws need to be changed--big time! Let's go after the cancer at its root.
 
 
+8 # RLF 2011-10-16 11:49
Sitting at home and signing your comfortable little internet petition will get you nowhere. It will be ignored. It is only when Wall St. and other corporate types feel the hot breath of REAL people on their necks, where they work do they understand the reality of the people they have hurt and destroyed. Only when more people have had enough and ignore the corporate government's demand to not stake out the FRONT DOOR of Wall St. will things start to change. The internet is good for organizing and lousy for applying pressure.
 
 
+36 # Charlie W 2011-10-15 16:29
Like it or not, the political system is the only way out of our economic mess. All the good OWS folks seek are the very things organized labor has been fighting for throughout the past 100 plus years. Please listen to organized labor and some of the reasonable Democrats (check their record. While at it check the other party officals and want-to-be's record especially since 2001. We had a national budget surplus when the other party stole the presidency in 2001 and restole it in 2004. Yes, there are bought and soold Democrats too but there are many good ones as well. As to Libertians? Well all I have ever worked for in my lifetime like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment and workers compensation and safety in the work place came about through the political system and is being destroyed through the same system and the U.S. Supreme Court today. Libertains would eliminate Social Security and Medicare to name a few on their list. Labor, (workers) have a stake in the success of OWS and are there to guide, protect and yes, join the ranks of OWS to once again get justice restored in the work place,on Wall Street, and in the halls of congress and the White House for you, for me, for one and for all.
 
 
+31 # mrgrtmorris 2011-10-15 16:39
MoveOn still has its value. I know my local members and have worked with them on actions when it was something I agreed with.

I have always been outspoken about their "yellow dog" loyalty to the Dems, continually pointing out the Obama's administration betrayed progressives in a steady slide from his election. The rhetoric was inspiring but his heart belonged to Goldman Sachs. I kept encouraging at least one endorsement to a Green, any Green, but to no avail

I think it's a mistake to do more than maintain separation from MoveOn. Historically, it's so like the left to split and split again, demanding "purity" instead of coalition. That's a way to lose.
 
 
+26 # Lolanne 2011-10-15 16:40
I am a member of MoveOn, too, and I haven't seen anything that looks like they
have tried to "co-opt" the OWS movement. This article is puzzling...it leaves more questions than answers. As diacad asked, who is DeGraw and where did he get his statistics? And why does he think MoveOn's support is an attempt to take over the movement? Seems to me OWS should be happy to have all the support they can get! After all, there's strength in numbers, as we all know. I so hope statements like this, that are definitely divisive in tone, stop!
 
 
+31 # rich39 2011-10-15 16:41
I am a member of Move-On and signed an on-line petition to Mayor Bloomberg to not force OWS to leave. OWS should accept help from wherever it can. If OWS represents the 99 percent, I assure you that I'm in that group, not in the 1 percenters! Let's not be so "tetchy", people.
 
 
+37 # Lolanne 2011-10-15 16:42
I agree the movement needs to stay clear of any particular affiliation with anybody, but the fact that so many groups have lent their support ought to mean something, too.
 
 
+39 # Proud Liberal 2011-10-15 16:47
If this movement is going to as pure as the driven snow and omit MoveOn and other Democratic Party related organizations it, like snow, will just melt with the heat. That's a foolish position. The tent is big and wide and has room for all who oppose the Tea Party, Republicans and others who don't value diversity.
 
 
+11 # MashingTheGas 2011-10-15 17:21
Bravo.
 
 
+4 # Phlippinout 2011-10-16 10:26
They are not omitting Move on, they are just not wanting the democrats to own OWS like the Repubs own the tea party, get it? WHAT A bunch a whiners! NO wonder i am sick of Dems too. Americans see everything with two sides, must be part of the extreme conditioning and lack of dimension I see in this society. Republican Democrat, the problem is, they are owned by the same corporations, the same money, the same goal, people, can you think out of the box?
 
 
+17 # jon 2011-10-15 16:55
"about half of the protesters are liberals, but the other half are libertarians"?

Wait Minute...

I thought libertarians are against government controls of any kind,

AND,

the main reason for OWS is the global meltdown of financial institutions which resulted from Republican drive to maintain NO regulations on these same financial institutions.

If that is true, what are libertarians doing at a protest against de-regulation?
 
 
+6 # mrgrtmorris 2011-10-15 18:27
Oh, my the terminology.

Noam Chomsky is a "libertarian socialist."

Some behavioral economist lecturing at UCSB is a welfare state libertarian.

And to the Tbaggers 100% not for their side is a socialist or maybe a communist or the anti-Christ?

It does get confusing.

Best I can make out is libertarians are for personal freedom which makes them close to liberals. If they do not like government regulation to protect the public interest--"the free market doesn't need none of that regulation, sonny" then they like Ron Paul and Greenspan, devotee of Ayn Rand. If they like gov't to protect them from bad things but not protect big corporations that screw them over, they like Ralph Nader and occasionally the Dems..

Last I heard Paul and Nader were proposing a third party, probably for educational purposes about their overlap. Neither one were laughing in the clip I heard on-line.
 
 
+15 # geohunt1 2011-10-15 16:58
Who said MoveOn was an arm of the Democratic Party? I thought they try to be non-partisan. After all, if you are a liberal you are not going to kiss Tea Party ass. Liberals are the ones I know of who a long time ago said Wall Street was evil. Doesn't Occupy Wall Street (whoever that is) want the support of liberals?
 
 
+3 # BillLee 2011-10-15 17:11
I WAS a big fan of OWS and participated in a local (not NYC) demonstration. I'm almost sorry I did. I didn't know that OWS wasn't a liberal or at least LEFT organization. I support progressive politics - where the government is expected to restrain the excesses of market forces, i.e. Capitalism. I consider Libertarians and their ideology to be at the heart of the evil that is ruining this country and that says, "whatever the market decides is right and good". I despise Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, the Tea Party and all that they stand for (except civil liberties, which I, of course, support and which are to me quite different than supporting unbridled laissez-faire capitalism - the religion of Libertarians). If OWS is more interested in including Libertarians than it is in allowing for progressive voices to be heard, I say NO THANKS!! They lost me right there!
 
 
+9 # soularddave 2011-10-15 17:17
Why does it seem that so many people are missing the point - or trying to interject their own, but not participating? This goes for organizations, as well. This is a movement that needs to define itself, and collect support on its own terms.

We saw the T-party form, and since then, be co-opted by certain elements that caused erosion of the "membership". Now, many of those same people have reorganized themselves with OWS - and for good reason. I applaud OWS for being careful to keep themselves self defined, and responsive to those who see the messages as closely relating to our own issues.

The overarching part of their definition is the relationship to the interests of 99% of the population, but many of "us 99%" have yet to understand, really, how it applies to us.

My best suggestion is to find your group and talk to them - and not go, wanting to argue.
 
 
0 # Phlippinout 2011-10-16 10:30
It is collecting support.
 
 
+24 # jon 2011-10-15 17:17
Republicans hate MoveOn almost as much as they hated ACORN, but not nearly as much as they are now hating OWS.

This is a good thing if it promotes biliousness in the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch, and their "yes" people - and all of the rest of the rip-off artists.
 
 
0 # Don Pratt 2011-10-15 17:22
A most profound sign at the Occupy Lexington demonstrations…
Here is a web page with the most profound sign I have seen in our Occupy Lexington (in support of Occupy Wall Street) demonstrations.
http://www.barefootandprogressive.com/2011/10/homeless.html
 
 
+21 # JayMagoo 2011-10-15 17:26
It would be wise for OCW leaders to not be so pure in their thinking. Remember, even though you have been demonstrating tremendous strength in recent weeks, you are the new guy on the block. The enemy isn't Move on or the Democratic establishment, it's the vast, well-funded, and all powerful financial establishment in the world. Negotiate with Move on and the dnc, but don't let them take over. You are now holding some pretty impressive cards in the numbers of people you get out every day. Over the years Move-On and the DNC have obviously been pragmatic and overlooked some of the contributions from financial interests, but it was them or nothing. OWS is a new movement, talk to Move On and the DNC establishment, demand that they honor your reasons for existence and your beliefs first. A lot can be done together. Of course, don't let them set the agenda, and of course insist that they honor your hugely powerful position. Together you can get a force for tremendous good.
 
 
+9 # noitall 2011-10-15 18:50
Amen JayMagoo.
 
 
-21 # josephhill 2011-10-15 17:27
Thanks for un-masking this outfit, and for showing these impostors for what they are--a wholly-owned subsidiary of the political party that inflicted Clinton, Obama, and all their Wall Street buddies upon us....and then claim to be a progressive movement.

They are joined at the hip with the DNC. When I get their e-mails I usually write back and tell them what I think of their claims to be anything but partisan slaves to the "Democratic" Party.

They are up to their usual tricks here in Worcester, Mass.; but, thanks be to the gods, they don't seem to be having much luck...let's keep it that way.
 
 
+19 # jon 2011-10-15 18:35
"Clinton, Obama, and all their Wall Street buddies upon us"

Very clever how you skipped over two terms of Bush, and HIS "Wall Street buddies" He did after all, appoint the CEO of Goldman Sachs - Henry Paulson, as his Secretary of the Treasury.

This is easily identified as Republican SPIN.

Consider yourself "out-ed", dude.

How much is the Republican party paying you to monitor RSN and "contribute" this kind of blatant "herring across the proletariots path"?
 
 
+14 # jon 2011-10-15 19:00
And another thing!

Your assuming the Nom de Plume of "Joe Hill", a selfless martyr for our constitutional rights who was murdered by a corporate owned system during the 1930's, is flagrant. You don't deserve to tie Joe Hill's shoes!

(May he rest in Peace - as I am sure he is. The Meek shall inherit the Earth)
 
 
0 # josephhill 2011-10-15 20:41
"May he rest in Peace - as I am sure he is."

------------------------------------------------

...But I never died.
 
 
-3 # josephhill 2011-10-15 20:36
Your cynicism is matched by your stupidity. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I don't loathe Bush et al. So simplistic: If I detest what Obama has done, I must love the Republicans, right? WRONG!

I suggest you go and get an education somewhere so you can MAYBE understand the nuances of political dialogue instead of being locked into your mindset that allows you only 2 alternatives. I've been a socialist and a Green Party member for over 40 years. Smarten up before you play with the big guys...DUDE.

You might also brush up on your spelling. The word is "proletariat"-- a group of which I'm a proud member.
 
 
+6 # Glen 2011-10-16 07:05
joseph, it is confusing why these folks are reacting so vehemently against your postings. They apparently adhere to the either/or system of politics, without realizing they could break away. You have been quite clear that both parties are corrupt. And they are.

Folks should dig deeper before interpreting incorrectly an alert and observant poster such as yourself.
 
 
+1 # josephhill 2011-10-16 10:06
Aww shucks...Thanks , Glen. Eventually, maybe these poor souls will see the bigger picture. Meanwhile, it sure is frustrating. Their vitriol I can take...their ignorance, not so much.

Thanks, again, Glen. You say it better than I...and with fewer words!
 
 
-1 # jon 2011-10-16 12:05
Hey Dood!

You are the guy who skipped over Bush.
 
 
+1 # Phlippinout 2011-10-15 21:21
Eat your heart out Joseph Hill! If you cant think out of the stale box entrapping your little mind that is your problem. I loved every moment marching next to many types of people today at Occupy Tucson. It was uplifting and inspirational to see how so many young people have been paying a lot more attention than i did at their age. What a great day it was all over the place. All you grumblers are dreamless excuses for humans. If you dont like it, dont go!
 
 
+5 # josephhill 2011-10-16 10:34
Hey...it was a great day in Worcester, MA, also! The MoveOn-ers were less in evidence than they would like to be...or that I could quietly abide. I have GREAT hopes for this Movement and what we can accomplish...as long as we keep our eyes on the prize (and NOT just on the next election or the political fortunes of the "Democratic" Party!).

I'm very much impressed by OWS's spirit and the processes that have been instituted. This is truly a People's Movement. As a veteran of the Anti-War, Queer Liberation, and Economic Justice movements of the past 50 years or so, I am VERY much heartened by what I see and hear among the (NON-partisan) participants.

Now...Why in the world are you attacking me? Are you so wedded to the DNC party line that you refuse to listen to the Truth or consider alternatives to the mindless loyalty of partisan hacks?

Give my regards to the "Old Pueblo".
 
 
+2 # stew 2011-10-15 17:34
I think it is important for this movement to distance itself from those who blatently or tacitly support the Obama administration, which is simply BushII. The Occupy Wall St movement must feel free to oppose the aggressive .imperialist wars of this administration, the soak the poor econimc policies, and the countless other inhumane policies of both the Democrats abd Republicans. Hopefully, this movement will morph into a genuine people's party that is beholden to the bottom 99%.
 
 
0 # Jorge 2011-10-16 00:16
Amen, thank you. OWS can evolve into a successful third party. It is better than continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils (Repugs and DINOs controlled by banksters and the MIC) time and time again.
 
 
-2 # markhalfmoon 2011-10-16 09:32
Oh boy. OWS can evolve into a successful third party. Will there be ponies?
 
 
+3 # Jorge 2011-10-16 11:39
No ponies. But there will be some cynical asses who contribute nothing.
I guess you just keep voting for the lesser of two evils (Repugs v. DINOs) and expect different results. Sad.
 
 
+31 # arimbaud 2011-10-15 17:49
Hey, I support MoveOn.org, including w/ money (I'm old and can do it) and believe me, I am NOT a "Democratic Party operative". Nor a "pawn" of anything. Gimme a break! ...If MoveOn says things that don't represent the movement, fine, tell'em they're full of it. But do NOT reject MoveOn out of hand. That's plain dumb.
 
 
+17 # Risa de Angel 2011-10-15 17:49
Can ALL of us on the left refuse to participate in this circular firing squad moment? Infighting has always been our downfall. Republicans are nothing if not opportunists and are probably infiltrating OWS, spreading lies and rumors to pit one leftwing group against another. (And judging from interviews videotaped by Fox and CNN, some Republican operatives have already been planted as "protestors" to say things that no one in this movement would ever say.)
 
 
+4 # jon 2011-10-15 18:08
And one thing Republicans have demonstrated over and over again: if you don't toe the party line - sign pledges, etc. - you are OUT!

Meaning literally that. They will make sure that some more genuflecting coward takes your spot in Congress, next election
 
 
-7 # josephhill 2011-10-15 20:47
"Can ALL of us on the left refuse to participate in this circular firing squad moment?"

You're suggesting that MoveOn is a 'leftist' organization? Are you one of those who thinks Obama is a socialist?

NEWSFLASH...MoveOn is a slave to Obama...who is NO kind of socialist I would recognize as one.
 
 
+22 # arimbaud 2011-10-15 17:57
Not sure if my last comment got in. Believe me, people who support MoveOn are NOT "Democratic operatives." They're as diverse as the people--like me--who support OWS. It's plain dumb to turn them away. And against a lot of the good things OWS has been doing.
 
 
+11 # Jonnee Denton 2011-10-15 18:05
The only way to make things happen is to get involved in politics as they exist, not the way you wish they existed. Ross Perot started a third party movement on the right that split the Republican vote and elected Bill Clinton. Ralph Nader led a third party movement on the left that allowed GW Bush to steal the 2000 election.

Join your local Democratic organization and pull it to the left. Take over the party the way the Tea Party has overwhelmed the Republican party. Please.

I am getting old and tired. Many of my liberal friends have given up and deserted the party. That is not the way to change things. Real Democrats will welcome you.
 
 
-3 # josephhill 2011-10-15 20:55
"Ralph Nader led a third party movement on the left that allowed GW Bush to steal the 2000 election."

Al Gore and John "Reporting For Duty" Kerry cost Nader the elections of '00 and '04. I voted for him twice. I haven't voted for the "Democratic" presidential nominee since '92. Slick Willy turned out to be an A-1 opportunist and liar.

Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice,...!
 
 
-4 # markhalfmoon 2011-10-16 09:27
Brandishing your fool credentials does nothing to advance your point on this matter.
 
 
+4 # josephhill 2011-10-15 21:00
"Real Democrats will welcome you."

There are darned few 'real Democrats'. They pretty much died out after LBJ (the last "real" Democrat). If it weren't for that crazy Asian War (in which 'my' team took Second Place), LBJ would go down as one of the greatest presidents since FDR.
 
 
+12 # kiliastrom 2011-10-15 18:30
I am glad that there is a determination within OWS NOT to allow the Movement to be co-opted by ANYONE. Before I understood OWS, (not that I claim to fathom all that is happening, but I think I AM beginning to recognize this Movement as creating a CHANCE to take a step forward in a new way), I realized that the Democratic Party I supported all my life was simply the other side of a two-headed monster. The Democratic Party is OWNED by the same people who OWN the Republican Party. Almost everybody is able to see that the time has come when we MUST change in order to survive . Exactly what the called-for changes ARE, will be such a departure from the tortured system we are now trying to inhabit that they will not come easily. No one person, book, group, party, will be able to come up with all of the answers. The PEOPLE of this Movement are the leaders, and the Movement is a process. Anyone who wants to be part of the Movement is WELCOME. This is something different. Something we have never seen before, even though aspects of it ARE familiar. I believe that IF we allow this Movement to go through its process, eventually, methods and other movements and alliances and strategies will emerge from what is REALLY the beginning of the next step forward. We are being confronted with a CHANCE to evolve. We must be careful not to allow it to become POLITICAL.
 
 
-6 # jerryball 2011-10-15 18:44
I get a lot of daily emails from political agenda groups. Almost every one of them have sent solicitation for funds to promote +OccupyWallStre et, while not one is actually affiliated with the movement. Whole lotta graft going on with these folks whose hands are constantly out for money under the guise of fighting for equality. I consider that they are now tipping their hands on where their heart and loyalties actually lie.
 
 
+15 # FLAK88 2011-10-15 18:48
Wow ! AM I confused ! If the main objective of the movement is a level economic playing field for the 99%, how do these people expect these demands to manifest themselves ? The only way is increased banking/ financial regulation and additional consumer protection laws. As to improved employment opportunities, corporations will need to stop hoarding profits by not hiring and also stop off shoring jobs. There are more actions needed, of course, but nearly all of them will require regulatory and taxation intervention by Federal and State government. (Now, just GUESS which major political party would say "NO" to all of this ?)To believe otherwise is completely naive. If people want to see at least a portion of the criminal bankers prosecuted, they will also need the government for that. If half the OWS people lean Democratic, then I guess they will have to educate the other half to these realities. (Running around with libertarian anti-Obama signs is just plain nonsense...)
 
 
+8 # noitall 2011-10-15 18:48
Our world is a complex place. Reality, we live in a two party system, true, both suck. Normally the People have faired better w/ Dems but not lately with the Supreme Court being owned and leading to even more 'ownership' of our "representative s" (as if). BUT, we can't be moving along like we're actually going to impact these billionaires. Eventually, it may get to that but WE are not going to win an all out war against these thugs, it'll take time and a collective effort. We can't afford a Repub pres. at this point regardless of how bought and gutless and A-hole-ish the Dems are. Chill, think, learn, win/give, focus on the common good and the reality of the LONG HAUL. Help our brothers world-wide against this corporate madness. Learn about places like Peru, don't think it doesn't impact your life. Have faith in the movement. If it is strong, noone can move us from our goal, certainly not other lefties. If they need help, help them, just make it clear to them what the help is for and demand help from them in return. If they don't play, THEN get pissy. Until then, we need all the allies and voice that we can muster. Make the leadership of MoveOn answer and justify to the 99%. They've done good work, with a little tweeking they'll do more good work. If they don't, they stand to lose supporters. Have Faith in the power of what you've started. If we fear and doubt, we have nothing!
 
 
+3 # fishskicanoe 2011-10-15 18:49
The person to go is David DeGraw for even thinking he has the authority to make these comments on behalf of OWS. Self aggrandize much, David?
 
 
+9 # John Talbutt 2011-10-15 19:50
The demonstrations against the Vietnam war that involved millions and turned the tide against the war got by without "primary organizers" serving as ideological gate keepers.
 
 
+5 # josephhill 2011-10-15 21:05
Hear..Hear...hi erarchical organizations seem always to turn into playgrounds for duelling egos
 
 
+9 # Caballero69 2011-10-15 18:56
OWS - the on the ground demonstrators are doing a marvelous job of rousing a slumbering nation. That said, however, now is not the time to turn into prima donnas who stamp their feet and hold their breath when help is on the way. Move On is not trying to co-opt OWS. It and other people of goodwill are trying to demonstrate solidarity and add to the momentum OWS has generated so well so far.

We lefties need to get a grip and learn and heed this maxim - coming to is a beginning; working together is progress; staying together is the key to victory.

We have genuine enemies; they are not merely opponents; they are enemies of us, and of the Republic.

Let us all quit whining and start shining the bright light of truth and courage on these folks as they slither out from under the rocks we are kicking over!
 
 
+11 # lotus 2011-10-15 18:57
I think MoveOn people, and all others, should be welcome as INDIVIDUALS, not as an organization "partnering" with OWS.

There was a great Occupy rally of 700 people in Boulder, Colorado NOT organized by MoveOn, just by a few people putting out the call. However the newspaper printed it differently:

"The Occupy Boulder rally was organized by the recently formed Boulder chapter of the progressive group MoveOn.org and was part of the Occupy Wall Street movement that has spread across the nation."

This must remain a movement of individuals, even if on their own they affiliate with various organizations.M oveOn is a Democratic front and has a lot of people fooled.The opposition has the echo chamber which is talking about OWS as a MoveOn George Soros funded operation.
 
 
0 # swissms 2011-10-16 07:18
Hey Lotus, two questions: 1) how come only the tiny Denver protest got covered in the international press while the larger Boulder one didn't, and 2) why didn't more Boulder people go to Denver to support that protest? The police wouldn't have had such an easy time breaking it up and arresting everybody. I felt really ashamed for the tiny turnout in Denver.
 
 
+1 # swissms 2011-10-16 14:59
I just read that 1000 people have now shown up in Denver. Way to go!
 
 
+19 # Mike Farrace 2011-10-15 19:07
Forgive me, but it seems to me someone is falling into a trap. What I mostly heard DeGraw say is that the Main Stream Media was using the MoveOn guys as the spokespeople. He should have left it at that.

Whether they really are consciously trying to do that or not, until the OWS guys get their public face together and speak for themselves, there will be a parade of people filling the vacuum. I saw a really good OWS spot on Lawrence O'Donnell last night. Those wholesome sentiments in that ad spoke very eloquently for the cause and are exactly what OWS spokespeople should be focusing on relentlessly, and pronto.

I also think dissing MoveOn serves absolutely no purpose, especially when its an ill-composed and arrogant insult that in my view MoveOn does not deserve.

Time, indeed, to lighten up and make some apologies. I would bet 99% of MoveOn members just want to be supportive and helpful.
 
 
+3 # mrgrtmorris 2011-10-15 19:21
I hope everyone understands that we have free speech and freedom to assemble because these rights are so ineffective to making change.

The moment it looks like more than an expression of sentiment, it will get rough, it will get like Egypt or Syria or Yemen or like the end of the Paris Commune or like Tiananmen Square or fill in the blank

This is a long, long process with deep historical roots and it will recur again and again.

Today is just the exhilaration of many people agreeing and showing their feelings. Tomorrow it's likely to spawn co-option, corruption and conflict.

Sorry to rain on your occupation.
.
 
 
+6 # John Talbutt 2011-10-15 19:48
It is reassuring that most commentors see the divisive and sectarian nature of the article.
 
 
+1 # Ken Hall 2011-10-17 04:34
Yes, we need to find the common ground, we are all brothers and sisters in the human race. The moralism of capitalism relies on destroying that sense of community, on making each person a separate, exploitable island. It is much more difficult to rob and cheat a member of your own family than it is to rob a stranger. We need to (re)build bridges, to recreate the sense of community that has been systematically destroyed by hierarchical capitalism in order to isolate us from our natural strength, which is in our numbers.
 
 
+6 # Anarchist 23 2011-10-15 20:16
A plague on both your houses! Neither party is worth supporting and neither is the system which has bought them. People are waking up and realizing that there is plenty we the 99% can do, just be cause we have the sheer numbers. What if we decided we didn't want to play by the rules as stated? Marcy Kaptar said from the floor of the house:You be squatters in your own homes. Neighborhoods have prevented and reversed evictions. Actually this is not a big step-this country has had a long tradition of civic activism, but as we look around at the anonymous lives we so often live, that community has vanished. OWS shows us about reconnecting, and by reconnecting we can make other systems. Let's dream big,it's 2012-it's a really New tomorrow
 
 
+6 # Jorge 2011-10-15 23:59
Yes Anarchist 23, this "democracy" has been so corrupted by the elite powers and the working class has been so decimated that the time is ripe for a successful third party. When the timing is right big things can happen (the end of slavery in the U.S., the end of the Soviet Union and death of communism, etc.). Look what Gandhi and Martin Luther King were able to accomplish. Now we have the internet and social media to accelerate change (and raise money like DINO Obama did). So OWS could evolve into a real grass-roots party (the Labor Party or Middle Class Part or the Majority Party, per Norman Goldman).
 
 
+4 # josephhill 2011-10-16 08:51
"Neither party is worth supporting and neither is the system which has bought them."


Right on, Anarchist 23! It's reassuring that most of those participating in this discussion are capable of seeing the Big Picture. Anyone who considers EITHER of these "two" parties [actually, it's only ONE "Chamber of Commerce" Party] a vehicle for genuine change is fooling him/herself. BOTH of these parties are dedicated to the preservation of a "free" market economic system no matter how many people are suffering under its yoke. The time has come to re-consider the viability of a society that upholds the class relationships engendered--and sustained--by an economic arrangement based on Competition, rather than Cooperation.

The only consolation is that eventually (and sooner than most people expect) will collapse. If History is, as Hegel wrote, the "progress of the Idea of Freedom", it becomes increasingly clear that capitalism should be on its last legs, and the "Owl of Minerva" is about to take flight.
 
 
+8 # KittatinyHawk 2011-10-15 20:18
OWS is their own movement and I am proud of them.
Lot of Organizations who have been around, see people coming to events and they decide maybe we should go there to get...

I saw it with Environmental Issues. Small groups would start something, look to others for info, then the other org want to take the cake not the piece offered. Move On, AFL have their own jobs to do...Wisconsin, Ohio etc so they should concentrate on their message, their work. They should support all good Movements so as to get more people who are interested to continue to spread awareness of all causes. There are hundreds.
OWS must stay focused, get the TPigs from starting problems. They do not have the time to divide their Space. This is their Action...everyo ne else can get into the line and March along, give Support, remember this is for the 99%.

So many here want a new Democratic Party, Liberla leadership etc...these OWS do not want to get caught up in this, you should understand that. No negativity on their part, but I am glad they drew the line in the Sand. This is a First Step in showing the Vultures they are not taking sides. Good for you OWS!!! It would be so simple wouldn't it, pack up go home, your safe you are under 'whose wing'? Well, they have their own 'Net' and they will learn how strong it is on their own.
 
 
+8 # Mojito11 2011-10-15 20:21
Hey, MoveOn has been one of the most successful, organized groups to speak out against the war, corporate corruption, bailouts, extremism and Sarah Palin - if not covered under extremism. I've participated in many MoveOn protests and activities and met incredibly talented, passionate and committed Americans of all ages. MoveOn has also been successful at fundraising among individuals for progressive candidates. Don't alienate this terrific grassroots organization!
 
 
+9 # davegowdey 2011-10-15 20:43
I hate the silliness of this kind of blog. The blunt truth this fellow needs to know is that without organization and demands for constructive change this is just a large tantrum. It is political theater that will be marginalized the longer it goes on without a strategy for moving forward. It will have no long term impact or effect.

I also don't believe for a minute that libertarians are a significant part of this movement. They are the tea partiers. It may reflect Mr. DeGraw's political leanings - but the truth is that libertarians would favor less Government and less regulation of Wall Street. I have to say that where I see the value of Occupy Wall Street is in helping purge the Democratic party of the DLC DINOs that have been helping the Republicans for thirty years and forcing the party to decide where it's loyalties lay -with thte 99% or the 1%. For too long it has failed to fight for the 99% and the threat of OWS turning into a third party that will should scare the bejeebers out of Democratic washington. I HOPE this is the liberal tea party - and that it slaps the right wing democractic leadership (and thos around the President) clear out of American politics.
 
 
0 # cypress72 2011-10-15 21:21
The sad truth of the matter is that we have all been dependent on Wall Street to raise the capital necessary to make companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Research in Motion, etc. a reality. Without Wall Street there wouldn't be an internet and without the 1% you wouldn't have any social media at all. We've all had the opportunity to invest in these companies and there is still tremendous growth in hi-tech in the coming decades. As recently as 1997, Apple was selling for $7 per share. It's now $420 !!! Anyone who bought $2,500 worth of Apple stock in 1997 instead of a Mac would now have akmost $150,000 !!! That's only 14 years ago. Shut down Wall Street and no one, including Steve Jobs, would have seen that growth and innovation. Jail the crooks for sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water !!
 
 
+5 # jon 2011-10-16 00:45
Cypress,

We don't want to shut down Wall Street, we just want to return to the pre-Reagan circumstances when they could not ROB the whole damned world and get away with it.

In short, we want to take away the "License to Steal", that was handed to them 30 plus years ago.
 
 
+9 # Michael_K 2011-10-15 21:26
MoveOn was relatively helpful in defeating the DLC to get a "progressive" nominated as the Democratic Party candidate... or so we thought.

The baggage of both parties and their peripheral organizations is too heavy, too poisonous and they are all untrustworthy. OWS needs to carefully protect its independence.
 
 
+4 # Tee 2011-10-15 22:34
In attending earlier financial crisis meetings sponsored by Moveon; any criticism of Obama, for instance that he took more money from Goldman Sachs in history was looked on with heresy. I was literally thrown out of some meetings.

Moveon has a very technologically savy internet outreach. Obama probably can't win without them. But moveon must realize that Obama has made a total scift from his compaign promises.

I for one will no longer participate in any of Moveon compaign while they are emotionally wedded to Obama. The balls in Moveon's court. Either Moveon is with the movement or they are with Obama. Moveon cannot serve two masters.
 
 
+4 # josephhill 2011-10-16 09:24
"I for one will no longer participate in any of Moveon compaign while they are emotionally wedded to Obama. The balls in Moveon's court. Either Moveon is with the movement or they are with Obama. Moveon cannot serve two masters."
---------

It was obvious from the very beginning that MoveOn was a tool the DNC manufactured to Bill Clinton's specifications. Your experience with them, Tee, is not at all uncommon...in fact, it's routine for them to stifle ANY opposition that would question their mission to stand behind ANY policy (no matter how cockamamie or how hurtful it might be to the 99% they claim to work for) promulgated by a Democratic president.....E VEN when such a policy is next-of-kin to the Republican agenda. They certainly don't have any patience with what we might call 'Candor' [QED].
 
 
+11 # Earl 2011-10-15 22:48
OWS doesn't need clear demands. Yes the 99% is a tantrum... or maybe a defiant child who's had all s/he can take and is ready to say "no" with clenched fists. That is of incredible value in itself. That's the only part OWS need play. All they need to do is make it clear by their ever-growing numbers, spreading across the country, that we no longer accept business as usual...that we no longer will tolerate the 2-party corporate power structure. Demand a space for all who have been silenced to finally join the dialogue and participate in a truly democratic experience. All they need to do is sustain an ever-growing voice of "NO! NOT ANYMORE!", creating greater and greater space for all the other groups to stand up for their individual causes.... women, democrats, unions, libertatians, gays, scientists, educators, families, out of work, homeless... These groups have clear objectives. OWS doesn't need any other other agenda but to give courage to and clear the way for these voices to be heard. Let each group stand up and make their individual demands (not collective OWS demands) to this corrupt political system that now must succumb-- because people have taken to the streets in large enough numbers that we can no longer be ignored. OWS doesn't need an agenda. OWS only needs to inspire courage and a belief that democracy is still possible!
 
 
+4 # josephhill 2011-10-16 09:29
"OWS doesn't need an agenda. OWS only needs to inspire courage and a belief that democracy is still possible!"

----------------------------------------

BRAVO, Earl....and VERY well-said!
 
 
+1 # wwway 2011-10-16 01:04
If OWS folks believe this about MoveOn then I'm disenchanted with OWS.
 
 
+4 # freierz 2011-10-16 03:08
I see a lot of Democrats here making a tacit assumption that what they're seeing on the streets is a new leftist movement. That is not what I've encountered. What I see is people from all walks of life, of all political leanings, coming together to announce and discuss the fact that politics does not represent them. I have considerable philosophical differences with the libertarians and the like, but they are Americans too, and I'm willing to stand with them to fight for fundamental, systemic changes in the political process.

Make no mistake: I'm talking about nothing less than the formation of a new American center. People are realizing that the two-party politics has us all focused on the things that divide us, with no focus on the things that unite us. This can, and I think will, be a broad-based coalition.

We will welcome your voices in this movement, but I highly doubt the occupy movement will by consensus become a new front for the Democratic party.

Of course I can't speak for everyone, just for myself and what I've observed.
 
 
-3 # doomed to repeat history 2011-10-16 15:22
I must point out that this is an agreeable sentiment but not possible to practice - your assumption is that we can stand for change but not define the changes we want to see.
Unfortunately this is EXACTLY our predicament now - many wanting change but without analysis and choices nothing happens - or worse - powerful forces step in and try to create the change they want "by any means necessary", buying influence and spreading disinformation. Sound familiar?
My point is this - demonstrations are important - but they don't substitute for the other part of the process - defining what we want and heading toward it - think of it this way - picture yourself at a crossroads, you need to choose which direction you're going to take - otherwise nothing happens, no matter how many gather at the crossroads..... this is why leaders or singular issues make the path forward clearer - either can articulate a direction and shape inchoate frustration into something which can be put into action.
BTW to the person who said there was no leader in anti-war demonstrations - it was our opposition to the war which united us - in any case, it's a process so be patient, all.
 
 
+3 # freierz 2011-10-16 18:33
It's as if you didn't read what I wrote at all.

I WANT the occupy movement to come up with a platform. But I DON'T want it to be a liberal platform, because that would lead to no change happening at all. The mainstream media and political establishment is doing everything in its power to frame this as the left's response to the tea party - that's NOT what it is, from what I've seen.

As you say, if we don't take charge of it ourselves, "powerful forces step in and try to create the change they want "by any means necessary", buying influence and spreading disinformation. Sound familiar?" Yes, it sounds familiar - it sounds like the Obama campaign.

People from all across the political spectrum are uniting around the FACT that the political process is hopelessly broken, by the influence of money and the two party system. DEMOCRATS should be just as afraid of this as REPUBLICANS; instead, you bastards tacitly assume we're just more of you, and that you can speak for us. IT ISN'T TRUE.
 
 
+1 # Suzi 2011-10-16 04:17
Basing an entire argument and article on a couple of tweets? Really? It appears to me the one attempting to "divide and conquer" here is the author of this piece! He is the one who apparently has an issue with MoveOn. Verbally declaring their support for this movement doesn't mean MoveOn is trying to take it over or take credit for it. It is merely declaring that they support it! Way to make a mountain out of a molehill!
 
 
+6 # futhark 2011-10-16 04:38
Yeah, I told MoveOn to buzz off from spamming my email some years ago when they turned into uncritical Obama-worshiper s, even when he gave his infamous "indefinite detention" speech at the National Archives and pushed extension of the grossly misnamed PATRIOT Act. Mr. Obama is, in my opinion, the Manchurian candidate of the MIC and security state agents and needs to be opposed whenever he advocates unethical action, regardless of the "D" label he wears after his name.
 
 
-2 # sandyclaws 2011-10-16 05:20
"Mashing the gas" said it best! People without a list of positive directions are just a bunch of winers! Let's reform the Democrats and get the show on the road. Let's punish those on Wall street that caused our problems.
 
 
-1 # Earl 2011-10-16 12:48
although revenge on Wall Street might feel satisfying, being vindictive is not a positive way forward.
 
 
+2 # doomed to repeat history 2011-10-16 07:50
the comments that argue for OWS to resist making demands in order to become more powerful dont make sense to me - to use one of the metaphors - that OWS is like a defiant child with clenched fist - as a parent you cant help that child get what it wants until it can tell you - hence the reminder "use your words" - SO while I understand the sentiment of wanting a moement that allows a large number of people weigh in about their frustration with the status quo - and to be heard and excepted and not sidelined - in order to get anything done, or to make your demands understood "you hae to use your words - and in any group when you begin to identify what your concerns are the next step is to refine the expression of your concerns and then to prioritize which order to place the concerns in - most urgent to least urgent - etc etc.I dont understand how to square this amorphous strategy with actually accomplishing anything - ALSO I agree with those who are concerned about aligning with libertarians of any stripe as they seem ridiculously utopian or anarchist in their global rejection of regulation - mostly, great fans of Ayn Rand just seem intellectually immature.
Just sayin.....
 
 
+4 # Earl 2011-10-16 13:12
Please note I did suggest that words are spoken-- by each individual faction. Think of it this way... OWS is like the child social worker who is intervening on behalf of a large group of abused children who are either afraid to speak for themselves or are constantly shut down, having no power. The interviener has the power-- to demand that the abusor back off, listen and change behavior, or be removed from position. The interviener cannot adequately voice the pains and position of every child, and any attempt at concensus would only reduce a broad range of grievences to their common denominator. There are MANY ABUSES that must be answered for. These cannot be put into one nice little neat package of demands. But these many abuses do not stand a chance of being heard and remedied until the abusive adult is forced to not only listen, but to relinquish total power. That is Stage 1.
The OWS movement need only serve to intervene by saying "NO. NOT ANYMORE!"
 
 
+4 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-10-16 13:41
Absolutely. What would it take? Here's a starter list I wrote in five minutes.

Prosecute the banksters for malfeasance and mortgage companies for fraudulent foreclosures. Tax Wall Street transactions to help pay for their mess. Strengthen financial reform. Create state banking systems like North Dakota's. Stop bailing out big banks and start backing up community banks and credit unions. Pass a constitutional amendment that declares that corporations indeed ARE NOT persons and do NOT have the rights of individuals. Institute real campaign finance reform now.
Prohibit state voter-suppressi on laws. Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine that the Reaganistas scuttled. Rework trade agreements to make them fair to both the American worker and American businesses. Actively pursue corporate tax loopholes and offshore tax hideouts. Do not renew the Bush Tax cuts for the rich and powerful. Declare all transnational companies must abide by America's laws if they want to do business in America, and pay taxes. Stop subsidizing millionaire farmers and corporate farming and support small, sustainable farms. Support American-owned manufacturing IN America on a number-of-emplo yees basis. Declare that a pension is a legal contract, and prosecute those corporations AND STATES reneging on those contracts. Corporations must pay for their own pollution clean up.
 
 
+4 # freierz 2011-10-16 18:37
We ARE using our words. What on earth do you think general assemblies are? We aren't just whining to each other; we're talking about serious issues, and figuring out precisely what things we can ALL agree on.

I know the concept of focusing on what UNITES the American people is a bit intellectually complex for those who have taken the Democratic bait, hook, line and sinker. But it's the only way forward.

And your dismissal of libertarians shows just what sort of partisan hack you are. I have serious philosophical disagreements with libertarians, but I also realize there are a WHOLE LOT of things they and I can agree about, along with most Americans! Campaign finance reform is an obvious start. Corporate personhood is also a likely target. And have you heard Ron Paul speak about wars and the military-indust rial complex? In many ways libertarians are more liberal than 'liberals' like Obama.
 
 
+2 # Lady Marion 2011-10-16 08:07
Move On, like any other OWS organizer, has a right to speak. This is an inclusive movement and should welcome those who have the same concerns - as Move On does. Let's cut out the "in fighting" and welcome ALL 99%ers
 
 
+2 # markhalfmoon 2011-10-16 09:04
It really bothers me that OWS refers to itself as "the 99%." I think that's presumptuous and incorrect. 99% of what? The nation? The world?

Am I to believe that all these white kids speak for the interests of my Indigenous sisters and brothers living on the reservations like their father's father's father's father's spoke for us - with the best of intentions, of course and for our own good?

Perhaps the worst victims of the American economy, undocumented immigrant laborers, their exploitative wages and hostile racist legislation being passed against them is the most painful, tangible and obvious manifestation of capitalist greed in our country today. Yet their plight seems to be completely invisible to "the 99%."

My local city has an "Occupy" Facebook page to connect and discuss the important
economic issues the movement is so boldly addressing. When I put up a link to a story about Alabama's new anti-Latino Jim Crow laws frightening families away from jobs and schools, I was politely informed that it wasn't an issue relevant to the discussion being had by "the 99%."

Please explain.
 
 
+4 # Earl 2011-10-16 13:34
markhalfmoon... OWS certainly cannot speak for your grievances and your people. But what we can do collectively (you, me, OWS and everyone else who is sickend of the 1% for our own individual reasons)is stand up to the corrupt, corporate, uber rich, party-centric power mongers who dominate our political system to the extent that democacy is near dead. WE can band together to tell them their time is over. We can stand together to say "No. NOT ANYMORE!" and create once again the political space for democracy to renew where you and your people will have a better chance of being heard, and less of a chance that your demand will be shut down because they may run contrary to the agenda of the 1%. Let's join together for the common cause of democracy! And remember that you will run across many people who are closed-minded, or seeking power/control over the dialogue (the person who said your grievances weren't relevant). That person does not speak for me, nor you, and their closed minded positions will not create unity, nor success. You can be better than that... keep voicing your mind and heart. But don't throw the baby out with bathwater, as they say. There is still great value in working together.
 
 
-3 # justducky 2011-10-16 09:36
I think OWS is made up with some Tea Party people and is watering down the actual problems. MO probably is trying to focus on other relavent problems because world conditions do change rapidly. Sounds like jealousy is thriving here.
 
 
+2 # Peggy01 2011-10-16 10:52
Don't waste another minute infighting with supporters. You play right into the 1 percent. MoveOn supports OWS. That's all that matters. The movement will be defined as many things. Don't waste energy on trying to get the definers to get it right. We know who we are and what we stand for. We the people -- Power on.
 
 
+1 # maxeylynch 2011-10-16 11:31
per josephhill 2011-10-15 19:00
"... darned few 'real Democrats'...di ed out after LBJ (the last "real" Democrat) ..." WHAA????? LBfriggin'J??? You mean, the guy who likely had interest in JFK's head explosion, likely had similar sentiments about MLK as those who offed him, and who escalated Vietnam, for as memory serves, oil that didn't exist and then we were trapped by our own propaganda and couldn't easily get out of it --sound familiar? LBJ was a "great" politician because he *was* a "politician". He ran, 1st Texas, then Congress, with an iron fist AND was the EPITOME of compromise to "get things done". That's what politicians do--they compromise. Think Civil Rights ACT so Blacks would switch to Dem party. You had me clapping 'til you love-fested just about ANYONE from our .gov past who were ALL were products of well-heeled machines -even Kennedys need $ to win office. The machines *are* "the business" and ALWAYS have to compromise with big business to maintain the status quo -morals & ethics be damned! All must be done to nudge things in the right direction --the more subtle, the better, even if it only means, doing a little painting: when B2 was in, Walmart storefronts were Red; just before BO won, Blue; now, they are slowly turning Tea Party brown! The marketeers among us will get it. Emma G. said it best: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal".
 
 
0 # josephhill 2011-10-20 18:58
I think you've been watching too many Oliver Stone movies. You also misunderstood my point. I'm no great fan of LBJ; but I'm willing to give the devil his due. LBJ had plenty of blood on his hands, but he (unlike this clown Obama) had a vision for America. Sure he was constrained by the political reality of the American power structure, but it was under his administration that the 'War On Poverty' was born. His efforts on behalf of the down-trodden and disenfranchised at least exposed the problem of poverty--its effects as well as its causes. By acknowledging and then addressing the issue he raised the consciousness of millions who had heretofore been so beaten-down that they could hardly imagine an alternative to the 'status quo'. Sure, on a personal level he was often crude and uncouth; but you'd never see him expecting Congress to get things done without the kicking of many as*es and the twisting of many arms. He had a sense of his own power, and he wasn't afraid to wield it. For this I am thankful.

You're not telling me anything I didn't know about how electoral politics works
 
 
0 # maxeylynch 2011-10-16 11:45
also to josephhill: if I were to say who the last "real" democrat was, I'd have to go with Hubert Humphrey or, perhaps, Walter Mondale --whose running partner, Ferraro, seemed to have a bit of baggage to hoist with her hubby's construction firm ... it definitely wasn't Bill Clinton but, might have been, heh! Al Gore ... now that would be an interesting ticket: Gore/Nader
--Maxey Lynch
 
 
0 # maxeylynch 2011-10-16 12:09
oh... and I forgot about Senator McGovern ... dang! another great Democrat!
 
 
+2 # PaineRad 2011-10-16 13:23
It seems that the real agent provocateur is the blogger who seems to be claiming to be a voice of OWS. I thought OWS had no spokesperson.

It also seems that this blogger is trying to give libertarians (as in Libertarian Party) a bigger presence than is factual and is trying to restrict the range of issues being discussed. I welcome all comers for whatever reason. But I have no interest in any goups trying to stake a claim on this. Help, yes. Take over, no. And this guy seems to be the latter.

It also appears that the blogger is woefully uninformed and out of date about MoveOn. MoveOn is unquestionable liberal/progres sive. That does not make them a Democratic Party organ. MoveOn members are typically far more lefty and far more in tune with OWS than are most of the Democratic Party elected officials who have moved, in fear of being called bad names by Limbaugh and crew over the past 20 or so years, to the right of traditional Republicans like Everett Dirksen or Dwight Eisenhower.

The simple fact is that this guy, probably inadvertantly, showed his true colors.
 
 
+3 # cherylpetro 2011-10-16 13:35
It sounds petty and absurd! Fighting who leads the march that wasn't defined in the first place? I have seen companies crumble over such petty fighting for control! What is this, "Lord of the Flies?"Moveon.o rg isn't a Democrat group, it is a Progressive group the same as the Occupy group; and they are all striving toward the same end! Everyone can give their opinion in signs and interviews! Who cares? It sounds like people want to make names for themselves and get big credit; that should NOT be what this is all about! It is about people being upset that jobs are not being created (which is what the new Republican Congress DID run on, but they only create ridiculous bills that are more attacks on people's rights) and it is about homes being unfairly foreclosed upon without banks offering loan modifications, or any consideration of the economic times, nor putting a human face on banking; just cold hatchet jobs against people! They are also tired of Banks hating the fact that there are regulations in place to protect the customer from trumped up bank charges that can run up in the hundreds of dollars in fees for the customer in a month, and then the banks purposely look for a loophole so they can still screw their customer! Who in their right mind stays friendly with an person, or company that is looking for ways to steal from them? People are FINALLY tired of being targets!
 
 
+4 # freierz 2011-10-16 18:42
It isn't infighting. The whole point we're trying to make, despite the complete failure to understand this by Democrats like you, is that OWS is NOT "a Progressive group" like MoveOn. The whole point of OWS is the concept of the 99%; do you think 99% of Americans are liberal? Progressive? Don't make me laugh! This is about people talking to each other directly about what they believe, instead of giving into the futility of fighting each other through a hopelessly corrupt, bought and paid for, two party system. And what we, the 99%, are finding is that there are a whole lot of things we basically all agree about! Seriously! Enough to build a coalition around that completely bucks the two party system.
 
 
0 # v.rothman 2011-10-16 15:14
The cooptation process for the Obama campaign is well on its way. By largely restricting itself to the Obama message (as opposed to any policies or actions) of going after Wall Street, but ignoring the rest, OWS is parroting their line. By ignoring Iraq, Afghanistan-Pak istan, Libya, Israel-Palestin e, etc., as well as massive Pentagon budgets and foreign bases, and such no-brainers as getting rid of the Patriot Act, increasing the minimum wage, raising the Social Security cap, the environment, infrastructure investment, and improvements in public services, the bait is already hooked. And by downplaying or ignoring the role of the market system behind increasing inequality and foreign wars, cooptation is assured.
 
 
0 # josephhill 2011-10-20 19:22
v.rothman writes:
"The cooptation process for the Obama campaign is well on its way. By largely restricting itself to the Obama message (as opposed to any policies or actions) of going after Wall Street, but ignoring the rest, OWS is parroting their line."
...............................................

I haven't seen much evidence of OW (as a movement) basing their rhetoric on any messages of Barack Obama. As far as I can tell, Obama HAS no message....at least no message that Wall Street would disapprove of.

Attacking Wall Street is the best way to expose the root of all those problems you mention. Is there any doubt about who benefits from all these wars? Wall Street is the beating heart of capitalism. So any assault on Wall Street DOES threaten the entire system that provokes wars and finds-- or manufactures--t ax loopholes and ruins OUR environment in the name of PROFIT.

My point is that Wall Street is the very belly of the beast that causes ALL manner of ills.
 
 
+3 # mrothmel 2011-10-16 18:20
OWS and MoveOn.org are natural allies. You have to remember that as early as February MoveON has had rallies for a fairer tax policy calling us the other 98% (versus 99%). Our actions over the spring and summer gave Democrats the courage to call for taxing the rich to the point where Democrats in the Senate rejected Obama's pay roll tax cuts for a millionaire surcharge.

No One is trying to co opt anyone. If we want to eliminate the the corporate money that pollutes both parties we have to reject ideological purity and work together. MoveOn is extending a helping hand, it should be accepted as such.

Finally, there is no way to defeat corporate influence other than for OWS participants to register to vote, work against candidates who are puppets for the corporations and support those who are independent of them or run their own candidates.

Protests without votes do not accomplish the goal. In 1910 European Socialists thought that the unification of workers throughout Europe would end war. Four years later we all know what happened.

LETS WORK TOGETHER. ITS OUR ONLY CHANCE TO PREVAIL
 
 
+1 # freierz 2011-10-16 20:18
You say, "there is no way to defeat corporate influence other than for OWS participants to register to vote, work against candidates who are puppets for the corporations and support those who are independent of them or run their own candidates." I agree 100% - and that's why I'm not interested in Obama or most other Democrats. They're half of what's keeping America divided over relatively inconsequential things while ignoring all of the things Americans mostly agree on.
 
 
+5 # BLBreck 2011-10-16 20:20
I am a core member of a local MoveOn and even WE have problems with the "directives" handed down to us from National MoveOn! It is a very "top down" organization, often to the detriment of our local efforts. Our chapter is doing its best to support and encourage our local #Occupy and participate in rallies and marches...while NOT co-opting this wonderful movement. It is not inconceivable that some misguided local chapter of MoveOn tried to push it's agenda on #OWS, but I hope it has been and will be a very rare thing!
 
 
+2 # freierz 2011-10-16 23:18
In Boulder it was reported that the large occupy event was organized by MoveOn, but I don't think MoveOn intended to push that message. There was a smaller event they organized that took place the day before the first large (>500 people) rally that was organized by grassroots efforts. The local press has since issued a correction, so I feel no ill will to the local MoveOn group.
 
 
0 # josephhill 2011-10-20 19:30
Bravo, BLBreck....you' ve seen the 'dark side' of MoveOn's agenda. It's great that you and the rest of your members support OWS. OWS is I think a radical movement that will prove to be in the vanguard of the effort to make this nation's government truly accountable to the citizenry it claim to represent.
 
 
+3 # unitedwestand 2011-10-17 04:20
In my opinion the libertarians are no more than 20% from the people I've talked to at the Los Angeles location. The Ron Paulers are obvious with stuff that they're passing around, and a little obnoxious. Most understand that it is not appropriate to have signs supporting one candidate or another. I like that.

I think it is good that the movement doesn't want to be co-opted by any affiliated group, that is why they don't allow politicians to speak so much. That is the genius of this movement. They're trying to hold accountable all politicians and controlling systems.

It really ticks me off when I hear this movement compared to the Tea Party as they couldn't be more different. OWS everywhere is totally funded by people's donations for food and such . The Tea Party people were fooled into supporting the people who had done them in and avidly allowed the Glenn Beck loony toons to co-op their efforts. They failed to get anything accomplished, except allow rich corporatists to continue making obscene amounts of money.

This is a very exciting time and one too long in coming.
 
 
0 # josephhill 2011-10-20 19:33
"This is a very exciting time and one too long in coming."

----------

"Let 10,000 flowers bloom!" Isn't that what makes for progress?
 
 
-1 # LessSaid 2011-10-17 22:35
So,is David DeGraw speaking for the Occupy Wall Street now! It doesn't look like Move On or Daily Kos is trying to speak for the Occupy Wall Street movement at all to me. If anything, it look like David is trying to be a or the spokeman for the OWS.
 
 
+2 # dusty1215 2011-10-19 09:55
I am really tired of the fearmongering done by folks that call themselves liberals/progre ssives. Several commenters on this post are doing it and it says volumes about "your" agenda. Threatening people who refuse to vote Democratic with 'you will get the GOP who are worse' line of rhetoric is bs at it's best and fearmongering at it's worst.

MoveOn is out for themselves and no one else. They send out emails begging for money so often its considered spamming by some folks. They do not support any group or organization outside their own as witnessed by their total lack of support for the anti-war movement groups during Bush43's reign of terror. As a former volunteer for MoveOn, I can say this with knowledge of how they work and why they work as they do.

Within days of OWS getting Corporate Media attention, MoveOn was pumping out the emails, begging for money as usual and using OWS as a catalyst to squeeze that money out of the email recipient.

Any group that hits you up for money in every single email they send should set off your bs meter, as it smacks of rightwing fundraising tactics, otherwise known as astroturfing groups.

If that doesn't tell you their agenda, I don't know what does.
 
 
+1 # Firefox11 2011-10-19 16:33
I live in Florida and am a registered voter. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, someone who has demonstrated integrity as an advocate of the people. As an environmentalis t, still I did not vote for Al Gore. Why? Because Gore basically abandoned his principles and tried to beat Bush to the conservative feeding trough, and it did not work. If Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee, and that of then popular President Clinton, Arkansas, there would have been no need for Florida. Also, Gore conceded the night of the election, and then changed his mind. Furthermore, he needed to ask for a recount of the whole state of Florida, not just selected counties. And, having that Dem/Repub Lieberman on the ticket, who publicly opposed a recount, was a mistake. Let's put the blame for the results where it belong, with Gore,not with those of us who voted our conscience. Isn't that supposed to be what democracy is all about, "one man, one vote." Or do we actually not believe in what we export around the world?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN