Are people really getting upset at the notion of the Democratic party putting its weight behind OWS?

[phleshdef]

Whether some want to admit it or not, OWS is a liberal/progressive movement.

We only have one major political party in this country that gives liberals/progressives any kind of place at all. That party is the Democratic party. As painful as it is for some to admit that to themselves, that is the absolute truth and has been for quite a long time.

Anytime there is a major political movement in this country, the 2 major parties have to take sides. They may both ultimately take the same side (unlikely, but scientifically possible!) or they may choose the opposite side. Regardless, it should be of no surprise nor should it warrant any kind of anger when the Democratic party decides to put its weight behind the obvious choice. The Democratic party is not an all liberal party, but it IS the party of liberals. OWS is a liberal movement.

If anything, the harshest critics of the party, coming from the left, should be more than happy to see the party embrace something like OWS. Even if its something that some in the party are doing for the sake of politics or some other cynical reason, it will still ultimately drive the message coming from the party back towards the left.

Republicans embraced the tea party movement, and during the election of 2010, the tea party embraced the Republican party back. And as a result, the tea party has turned out to be a powerful group within the larger party and within the Republican caucus. Aside from the fact that their overreaching might be really screwing it up for them long term, we can't deny that the tea party and the Republican party's ultimate embrace of it brought both a lot of big gains for both interests. Again, this is an illustration of how Republicans win because they have each others backs, even when they have their own disagreements on particular policies. This is probably the only lesson the right has ever had to teach the left and it seems to be the very one we continually refuse to learn.

[democrat_patriot]

1. looking at the way the Teap party evolved - I wonder why Dems want to side with OWS

Are they worried the OWS crowd will end up costing them like the Tea Party is costing the Repubs?
It had to figure into their discussions - that's why it took so long?

[phleshdef]

6. LOL. "Took so long"

What is "so long"? A few weeks? A month? How long have these protests been going on again? Thats not a very long time I don't think.

This is another side effect of our "instant society". People have a really weird idea on what "a long time" even means now.

[Vincardog]

8. The TEA BAGGERS were and are a 100% reTHUGlican invention they no more "embraced" the baggers than

they birthed or created them. They are the Franken party

[phleshdef]

15. There is a significant number of tea party congress members and organizers that are not...

...Republican establishment.

I do understand what you are saying and there is no doubt that Republican donors latched onto the whole thing early and made sure that they got to go along for the ride, but there is a grass roots element to it as well... even if it is kinda like crab grass and not the good stuff.

[uponit7771]

2. Dems should SIDE with OWS but not take any active role in it. It would negate the 99% claim

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. +1

[seabeyond]

10. agree. nt

[phleshdef]

11. How would that negate the 99% claim?

If I had a wealthy uncle die and leave me 2 million dollars tomorrow, I'd be rich. Does that suddenly mean I'm not allowed to support the 99% movement anymore?

There were plenty of white people that joined in on the civil rights movement because they knew it was the right thing to do. Did that somehow negate the effort on behalf of the black Americans who fought for civil rights and were the ones without the civil rights to begin with?

[bemildred]

59. The Democratic Party is not even close to being 99%, or even 50%.

They have been losing audience share for decades.

[Creideiki]

30. I disagree and have evidence

FDR was definitely 1%, but sided with the 99%. (Granted, people can make arguments that by averting the conversion of the US to a fully socialist country, that he was "saving Capitalism", but there are plenty in the 99% that still think that capitalism works better than socialism. I think they are considering authoritarian socialism, but that's me.

[Ship of Fools]

37. Exactly. Thank you! I sure wouldn't begrudge seeing Bernie Sanders

down there giving a speech shouted out phrase by phrase ... JUST a speech, though ...

[jwirr]

42. Exactly. They need to listen and act if they see a bill that can help

the situation (do their job) but as to that actual group - let them alone to grow and reach their own conclusions. The protesters are doing a wonderful job without any help. I don't think it hurts to speak out like Polosi did but make no move to try to insert the party into leadership in any way shape or form.

[bemildred]

57. +1. nt

[defendandprotect]

67. This movement does NOT support Obama or any pro-corporate agenda -- !!

[Blue_In_AK]

70. Exactly.

Individual legislators speaking out in favor of OWS is fine, but leave the partisan organizations out of it.

[JuniperLea]

81. I know many 1%ers who support the 99%

If they want to donate goods or money or time carrying signs, I support them.

This is NOT war on the rich! That is what the RW is trying to make this out to be! Don't help them!

[TheWraith]

3. If you're against the Democrats trying to capitalize on this, you might as well give up now.

Because despite what some people want to delude themselves into believing, sitting around in a park having a camp-out is not a viable strategy to actually create laws which make the world a better place.

You can talk all you like about "revolution" or "a populist movement." And I can talk about space aliens landing. Right now, both are about as likely to influence what comes out of Congress, absent a change in who gets elected TO Congress.

The fact of the matter is, "movements" which DIDN'T associate themselves with electoral politics have always and universally been a MASSIVE failure.

[Scuba]

13. Agreed. The Democratic Party needs to embrace OWS and OWS...

...supporters need to move the Democratic Party left, way left of where they are now.

[WhiteTara]

20. Absolutely. THe Democrats that know are all very

enthusiastic about the turn of events and that the Democratic leadership is embracing the 99%. This is how to move the government. We did it in one day marches in the 60s, but the Egyptians taught us that we need to stay because little bursts of INCREDIBLE energy aren't enough. It must be sustained to be noticed in this time of 6 second increments of attention.

[BrendaBrick]

21. Agreed!

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dmkinsey]

39. You're wrong

The OWS people are saying, correctly, that both parties are owned by the 1%. OWS is not interested in getting the Democratic party elected officials to sponsor some legislation to make our system better. OWS has demanded a government that represents the 99%. Our current system does not represent regular people so there is no point in begging for incremental change.
Elected Democrats can do as they please. Cower or find a spine. Whatever. This is not about them.

[TheWraith]

49. That's bullshit and a cop-out.

It's the same "They're all bad! I'm going home!" attitude that justifies apathy, or third party spoilers. It's a cheap excuse for doing nothing, or doing feel-good self-righteous foot stomping instead of the legitimate hard work of change. It's the same line of shit that Nader tried to sell in 2000. If after the last ten or fifteen years, someone can seriously try to claim there's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans--that there would have been no difference between Bush and Gore, and none between Obama and McCain--then they have such a tenuous grasp on reality that we are REALLY all better off if they not only never vote, but also never drive or use matches.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

64. Not "bullshit" and not a "cop-out" --

At this point, the modern Democratic Party has been infested by corporate monied interests in such a way as to make it essentially useless to help enact the kind of genuine change that is required to create economic justice.

Yes, they ARE all bad. But we're not "going home". That's what you folks don't seem to get.

[GeorgeGist]

77. Still whining about Nader?

Look in the mirror chickenshithead.

[ThomThom]

82. the movement must find political support or little will be accomplished

I doubt the republicons will support this but if tea baggers see the light and join the side they should have been supporting all along, that would be a good thing, I think.

[jwirr]

51. So say I want Glass-Steagall back to regulate the banks so they

cannot steal our money to use in their WS casino. How are you going to get that into law by ignoring the law makers?

Say I am worried about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. How do I protect those bills by ignoring the law makers?

Say I want to have action taken to get rid of the debt students have accrued while in college. How do I do by ignoring the law makers?

If this were Paris France in the revolution we would cut off their heads and replace them with our own people but from what I see this is a non-violent protest with no such goal in mind.

How do you plan to get what you and I want without using the present elected officials?

[dmkinsey]

53. Well

The standard procedure would be to work like hell, elect 70 Senators of your own party plus a large majority in the House.
The point is no law is going to pass. No help is on the way.
We're on our own.

[jwirr]

54. With that I agree totally. The entire political system is in grid lock.

I was talking about eventually getting something done and if possible protecting what we still have of the safety net.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

61. "...capitalize..."

You mean take political advantage of a movement that is anathema to who is running the Party so as to co-opt/control the movement like the GOP did with the first townhall decriers?

Uh, not interested.

[GeorgeGist]

80. Newsflash everybody.

Esteemed historian T. Wraith has determined that the American Revolution was a MASSIVE failure. And from the looks of things he's probably right.

[seabeyond]

4. you would think it would eb a good thing, but on du, not so much. say nothing, bad dems

say soemthing, bad dems....

[OHdem10]

5. Labour Party anyone.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. "Some people say..."

[dtexdem]

12. Only if the Dem Party tries to redirect what was, among other things, a protest of the inadequacies

of the Democratic Party in representing most Americans.

This is important for a people's movement (just as it was for the peace movement): DO NOT CHAIN YOURSELF TO ANY SINGLE PARTY UNLESS IT IS ONE YOU FOUNDED.

[NightWatcher]

14. If the Dems want to embrace OWS, why not embrace their ideas instead of supporting WallSt

The DLC is an arm of WallSt's Greed Machine.

Maybe if they fought FOR the 99% instead of the 1%, their involvement would be more palatable.

[phleshdef]

16. Well as I said in my post, even if some Dem pols do it for cynical reasons...

...it will still drive the narrative of the party back towards the left which is the first step in rehabilitating the corporate hold on certain circles within the party establishment.

[NightWatcher]

22. The Dem pols can feel free to support OWS. Why won't they use their place in the halls of Congress

to fight for the 99%?

They haven't fought for us so far, so it's highly suspect that they really care now.

[phleshdef]

26. Many Dem congressmen and senators have been fighting for the 99% for years.

The truth of the matter is, we've always just been slightly under the number of progressives that we've needed, in office. 2009 and 2010 were the best we've had in a long, long time but we still didn't have enough in the Senate. Pelosi's house voted for a lot of great stuff that couldn't make it past that point. And MOST Dem Senators supported the things we wanted, but not enough to clear legislative hurdles.

If you were go back through the many progressive legislations that have been proposed over the last 20-30 years, ones that have passed and ones that failed to pass, and if you were to look at who sponsored those legislations, who took to the floor in support of those legislations and who ultimately voted for those legislations, you would find Democrats firmly behind the vast majority of it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

65. Frankly I am no longer interested in giving the time of day --

to any politician who would get on the OWS bandwagon for "cynical reasons" -- with that kind of politician, should the winds change, so will their votes.

I will only vote for people who truly believe in the politicians who are true believers in People before Wall Street.

[Ganja Ninja]

17. These are not Democratic Party rallies.

If they want to support OWS they can show their support in the form of investigations and legislation. We've had enough of speeches.

[jwirr]

52. Absolutely.

[Marrah_G]

18. Actions not words

And I believe the concern is that they will corrupt the focus and message into just more campaign crap. Show me some politicians ready to risk their campaigns and coffers with action and then I will stand up and applaud.

[Vincardog]

23. AS one OWS person said "When the 'Elected leaders' want to sleep here and be arrested with us we

will welcome them".

[Marrah_G]

27. That's it in a nutshell I think.

[phleshdef]

40. The only way you are going to get any actions is if a significant number of people in power embrace

...the movement. There are only 2 parties that have any power. Which one do you think is most likely to give you the kind of actions you want? I'll make it easy for you and give you a hint - not the Republicans.

[Marrah_G]

45. Actions - not hopes for actions- ACTIONS

I want to see them take a damn risk, do something for the good of the people and not the good of their campaigns.
Why are they not protesting also? Why are we not seeing them out there every day?

Why are we not seeing them making these bastards testify under oath in front of the senate?

Why is the DOJ not out there making arrests?

Why is the HEAD OF GE leading the so called jobs taskforce? This asshole is proud of outsourcing, proud of not paying taxes and thinks we should all applaud his new jet engine factory 13-18 dollar an hour jobs. He thinks people should be happy to have low paying jobs so that America can compete with China for wages. This is the man OUR party leader picked to create jobs.

[dmkinsey]

48. It seems clear that your premise is flawed

If elected Dems would have stood-up for the 99% when they had the chance, when they had mojorities in both Houses things would be different now.
They didn't because they want to play both sides. They want the votes of the 99% but they don't want to upset the 1%. Because they need the money.
So the whole system is failed. Our government doesn't work for the people.

[phleshdef]

55. The majority of elected Dems DID.

It was just enough of a majority in the Senate to make everything happen that needed to happen. It was literally a handful of Democrats + Republicans standing in the way of the really, really good stuff.

[Matariki]

63. +1

[Old and In the Way]

19. Democrats don't need to be grandstanding or co-opting the OWS movement.

What they need to do is reflect the message by supporting it in their legislative strategy. Make Republicans vote against OWS legislative...let them continue to expose themselves as the Corporate Party we know them to be.

[phleshdef]

29. OWS is the very thing the liberal wing of the party has needed to make the argument for the very....

...things that you are suggesting. Its a lot easier to convince the not-so liberal wing of the party to stop watering shit down when there is a powerful, vocal, people driven movement behind it to back it up.

We should have started the 99% movement when the tea party started rearing its ugly head, we'd be a lot better off.

[customerserviceguy]

24. Interesting difference here

The TP had its share of demonstrations, but for the most part, they tried to keep it between them and the congresscritters they were protesting. From 2009-10, the establishment Republicon party wanted to put down the TP movement, but after the November election, that was impossible. The TP is taking over the Repuke party, rather than the other way around.

Clearly, any move by the Democratic Party to embrace the OWS movement has another set of reasons. Is it to take leadership of a leaderless movement? Or is it a desperate gamble to hop on to some form of progressive enthusiasm when the Party has nothing else going for it, heading into 2012?

[FarCenter]

25. The problem is that too much of the Democratic Party leadership is in the 1%

Among the senators, Herb Kohl, Mark Warner, John Kerry, and Jay Rockefeller are all in the 1%. The list probably continues well beyond that.

Nancy Pelosi is worth upwards of $35 million, which is enough, I think, to put her in the 1%.

Why do you think nothing gets done to solve problems of wealth inequality in Washington?

[phleshdef]

33. That means absolutely squat. You are being blatantly prejudiced.

Just because someone is wealthy themselves does not mean that person is not capable of supporting pro-middle class policies just as someone who is poor isn't capable of supporting anti-middle class policies.

Plenty of white people supported civil rights for black people. Plenty of straight people support civil rights for GLBT. Just because you aren't on the side that is being oppressed does not mean you can't empathize with it and support it.

The truth of the matter is, there are rich people that are very progressive and want higher taxes for the wealthy and want rich people to pay more into social security and want corporations to be reigned in to do the right things. And there are poor and middle class people that are anti-liberal, want to get rid of social programs, want to eliminate corporate taxes entirely and a lot of other crazy shit that is not in their self interest.

This whole thing where we automatically judge someone's intentions based on how much money that person has is absolute bigotry born out of prejudice. It should not be considered a sin against all that is progressive to allow oneself to become wealthy. If I had the chance to become wealthy in an honest, lawful way, I'd take that chance in a second. And then I'd use any influence gained from it to both live comfortably and better the world around me. There is nothing wrong with that. There are evil rich people and there are evil poor people and there are evil people in between. And there are good people in all those realms as well.

[FarCenter]

71. Is political talent so lacking in the working class that we must select from the 1% for leadership

It isn't at all wise to depend on people who start out from the position of being class traitors.

Few "allow oneself to become wealthy" unless they hit the lottery.

Many of the 1% inheirit wealth. Most of the rest of the 1% obtain their wealth through a combination of luck, connections, conspiracy, ambition, greed, skill, and morally vague, borderline legal activities.

[phleshdef]

75. Of course not. But it should be no surprise that people who are successful in politics...

...are also highly successful in their professional lives.

Aside from that, you are being a straight up prejudiced bigot making sweeping generalizations on the character of people because of their income. There are just as many evil poor and middle class people out there calling for the end of social justice and social welfare. Maybe they aren't so much evil as they are stupid, but their political desires are evil, so its no different. In either event, money doesn't make someone devious. But devious people do get their hands on it and they do the wrong thing with it. Good people also get their hands on it and do good things with it.

[kctim]

28. I'm not upset at all

OWS does not represent 99 of Americans. OWS does not even represent 99% of Democrats. It is how you say, a liberal/progressive movement and they vote for the Democratic candidate, so it is our duty as Democrats to listen to them.
Not saying we should put all of our weight behind them, but giving them some support will help at the voting booth.

[woo me with science]

31. To the administration: ACTIONS, not words, or be prepared for OWS to call you out.

Right now this administration is part of the problem and a reason for the demonstrations.

[workinclasszero]

34. Republicans embraced the tea party movement, and..

subverted it and turned it into a racist hateful wall street lap dog!

We sure as hell don't want that to happen to OWS!

Actions speak louder than words. How soon before the wars stop? When is the bailout for the 99% coming?
Words are BS, we want ACTION!

[Capitalocracy]

35. The party can side with OWS, and I, for one, appreciate that

but it doesn't belong to them, and I think it's a good idea for that distinction to be made, because we certainly don't want to be the Tea Party.

[Odin2005]

36. The partisan framing in this country is such that any association with a major party will kill OWS.

There are lots of people in this country that support these protests but will reflexivley turn against them if they are seen as part of the Democratic Party.

[WilliamPitt]

38. Not me.

However, I think it is fair to say that the party's inaction/deliberate collusion regarding the targets of these protests is what made such protests necessary. I'm happy they're getting on board, but their inertia is a large part of the reason all this is happening in the first place.

[phleshdef]

44. I think its a chicken vs egg kind of situation.

After the 08 election, the activist left took a breather. I'm not saying it wasn't doing anything at all. But it definately wasn't doing anything like OWS, which is what it should have been doing the moment the tea party started getting legitimate attention. But it didn't. And so the right wing had a very vocal, pseudo grass roots movement which gave it a lot of political capitol that it spent on the 2010 elections. If we had something like OWS barking down Joe Lieberman's door, we might have managed to swing a public option. And we might have managed to get a stronger financial reform bill out of it. We might have even managed to save Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat. And we might have held onto the House in 2010. And liberal Democrats would have been able to have been much more convincing when confronting the centrist wing of the party.

What it comes down to is for a party to operate as a party of the people, the people have to continually keep their collective boots in its ass. If we remove the boot, then Washington will gravitate towards wherever it can find another boot available.

[Marrah_G]

47. Exactly.

Did you see the interview on 60 minutes with the head of GE, Obama's jobs czar? it was infuriating and well.... I can't say what I really felt like doing after seeing that interview. Even the reporter seemed disgusted by him.

[Enrique]

41. helping is ok

co-opting is not ok.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. “The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.”

“The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.” Marie-Henri Beyle - aka Stendhal

[booley]

46. There's a catch 22we should be worried about

Eventually any movement has to get influence in the political system to get what they want done. Either by getting power in the current system of just reforming/replacing it outright.

HOWEVER, the current political system always wants to protect the status quo . And if they can't get rid of a movement, co-opting it is just as good. IF they can deflect anger into pseudo change, that serves their purpose.

That is what happened to the Tea baggers. They had genuine anger but in the end the PTB just turned them into an organ to support the very people the TP'ers should have been fighting.

So OWS has to be be careful or else the same could happen to it. Even the most well meaning politicians can have a corrupting influence if for no other reason then politicians have to use the political process and the political process is so very broken.

There's a place for working in the system and a place for working outside of it. I don't see why progressives can't do both. IF progressive politicians want to promote a progressive agenda they still can and even use the OSW as the excuse (same as right wing politicians did with the tea party). But the OSW can still stay independent.

[Billypenn]

50. Key word "people"

This is a people's movement. Not a party movement. If anyone should own it it should be the Socialist Party. But they aren't taking it, they're co-existing within it. I didn't see a Democratic Party table set up at the protests. Hmmm?
Maybe it's time they took a seat at the table. 99%.

[PufPuf23]

56. The failure of the Democratic leadership after the mandate of the 2008

election is the cause of OWS.

Face the facts that the Obama WH and Democratic leaders (as well as a majority in Congress) are part of the problem and not the solution.

We need to get the neoliberals and neoconservatives out of power to even start to fix the mess of the USA.

I am a life long member of the Democratic Party and not happy at all because of the corporate neoliberals that control the Party.

I see OWS as the best way to get free of the neoliberal and neoconservative fascists.

I want to see an end to the wars, money removed from elections and governing, a redistribution of wealth and income, and laws in place that create FDR's proposed economic Bill of Rights as a social bottom.

The Democratic Party has to keep our own house in order first and to me that means getting the corporate neoliberals and neocons out of party control.

I perceive the Democratic neoliberals and neoconservatives as contrary to the goals of OWS.

I hope POTUS Obama has his own LBJ moment and we get a real Democratic primary with choices other than neoliberals or neoconservatives. I realize this is wishful thinking.

POTUS Obama should have done the right thing but spoke pretty words and appointed a cabinet and others appointees counter to the goals of OWS and the needs and desires of most of the population.

In general, OWS will favor Democratic ideals but OWS probably only exists because the party leadership has favored monied and powerful interests over the People.

[Dr Fate]

58. Self delete- sorry, did not mean to respond to you...

...

[Dr Fate]

60. 1st I've really heard of DEMS getting involved. In what ways are they getting behind us?

???

[phleshdef]

69. ...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/186467-dccc-asks-supporters-to-sign-petition-in-support-of-occupy-wall-street

[Dr Fate]

72. That was a link to a fund-raising email for the DCCC.

Nt

[phleshdef]

73. Um, no that was a link to an article on The Hill's website.

The Hill does not do fundraising for any party.

[Dr Fate]

78. The main example of DEM involvement in the article was a DCCC Fundraising email.

Nt

[Matariki]

62. I'd personally prefer if they ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING in Congress

It's one thing to *say* they support OWS - they need to get down to some real progressive action.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

68. What does the modern Democratic party even stand for? nt

[krabigirl]

74. I sure am. I am disgusted with the Democratic establishment. They need to sod off.

[GeorgeGist]

76. Is OWS putting it's weight behind the Democratic Party?

NO

[kentuck]

79. The moderate corporate suck ups want to be friends with the OWS...

:rofl: