Dems backing Occupy Wall St. are funded by Wall St.

[Donnachaidh]

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/

A lot has been made in the last few days of increasing Democratic Party support for Occupy Wall Street. Some within the movement have expressed fears of co-optation. Some on the right have argued that the Dems are blundering by throwing in their lot with a group of putative radicals. And so on.

The irony is that the same elected Democrats singing the praises of Occupy Wall Street are themselves major recipients of money from … Wall Street!

Does this mean that the Democratic embrace should be rejected? Not necessarily. Occupy Wall Street could, of course, open up political space for Democrats to address unemployment, income inequality, criminality by banks, the overwhelming influence of corporate money in politics and so on. But it’s worth keeping in mind that most if not all of these politicians have been cozy with Wall Street for years; so there are grounds for suspicion.

Take the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the party organization that collects money for House races around the country. It is now soliciting signatures (along with email addresses for its database) for a petition in support of Occupy Wall Street.

More at the link --

[Poll_Blind]

1. Expect a long-line of politicians to start sucking up once they realize their brand isn't needed.

Some of them will genuinely support the movement and will already have voting records showing same. Others, not so much. The protesters are printing their own currency with their action and that currency has a far higher value in trade than empty political promises.

Expect some politicians to flip flop from supporting OWS to railing against it. Once they recognize they can't put reins on it, they'll do their best to destroy it. Again, all expected.

Democrats or Republicans don't support OWS by making speeches at a rally: They do it by putting their money where their mouth is and supporting the kinds of legislation needed to address the disparity.

Expect some number to hover around the movement like groupies but turn out empty pockets when it comes to action. These tricks are hardly new, though. They're some of the main reasons why people are in the streets in the first place.

PB

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. Exactly. I believe the insincere will be detected and rejected, in a hurry.

[AverageJoe90]

2. I seriously doubt that ALL of them,are in the pay of Wall St........

But then again, maybe some of them are.

[ThomWV]

5. Yeah, 2. Bernie and Kucinich.

[markpkessinger]

17. Bernie isn't a Democrat n/t

[AverageJoe90]

23. C'mon man, don't be naive.......what about Mrs. Warren up in Mass.?

[ThomWV]

4. That is why the Democrats have no more business co-opting the OWS than the Republicans do

[Poll_Blind]

7. +1

^ This

[noise]

8. If you see a Democratic politician with

an OWS pin then you know for sure he or she is a real supporter.

I am pretty sure some perception management group (who just happens to work for companies like Goldman Sachs as well) is designing a suitable logo for the pin. It will be fun to watch Democratic politicians wearing OWS pins appear on news shows talking about shared sacrifice and "unpleasant but unavoidable" safety net budget cuts.

[Donnachaidh]

10. evidently there is a flurry of tweets from the OWS complaining of the attempted co-opt

They will NOT be used by either party, Move On (they specifically named them) or any other political group.

[truedelphi]

16. MoveOn is a shadowy, top down org and should be avoided at

All costs.

They usually are a light year behind what most activists understand. By the time that MoveOn decides on a position, that position is already being handled by a dozen other groups more effectively.

[Lionessa]

13. With rare exceptions like Grayson, Warren, & an Indy, Sanders.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other, and two of those are in the wings to be sure, but they still claim their big D Democratic status.

Anway, with rare exceptions, I agree. We need to start viewing pols by their "liberal" or "consservative" - ness, the R or D doesn't assure anything anymore.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[graywarrior]

9. I'm beginning to think the pols should stay the fuck out of this movement

I saw a lot of Ron Paul banners at the march in Boston today which made me uncomfortable. This is the people's movement, not any one politicians.

[gateley]

11. It's more telling how they vote rather than how much they

get in contributions, IMO. If I were a candidate I'd suck up to them to get their money and then vote the RIGHT way anyway. Just because someone accepts campaign contributions from an industry doesn't necessarily mean they will vote accordingly.

I know it's USUALLY the case, but probably not always. :shrug:

[booley]

12. In their defense

It's almost impossible to run for any major office without getting money from Wall Street these days.

At one time Union money countered corporate money. But as Unions lost power and elections became more expensive, Democrats turned to the only remaining source of revenue: Corporations.

This does not mean they all necessarily lying when they say they support OWS. I am sure a lot of Democrats don't like this situation any better then the rest of us do but see it a s anecessary evil. So it is possible at least some of them see Occupy Wall Street as a way to change the situation.

Unfortunately it's just as likely the support is empty platitudes (many Americans in general, though supportive of OWS don't think it will change anything).

Or worse, some may be trying to co-opt and neuter the movement.

I think Occupy Wall Street should treat Democratic politicians the way one should treat a friend who's an addict or has other issues that makes them unreliable.

Be open to the possibility they are sincere. Give them a chance to help. But always keep them at arms distance just in case.

[Donnachaidh]

15. "the way one should treat a friend who's an addict"

Yup -- agree 100 per cent, but not the way you think.

Having had multiple family members who were/are addicts - I agree. But my foot would be on their asses, as they went thru the door.

Tough love.

Because addicts need to hit bottom before they get their shit together. Coddling doesn't do it. A big old dose of reality does.

OWS has it right. Things need to be cleaned out. ALL of it. Regardless of sweater color.

[Rex]

14. Term limits.

And abolish the ability for corporations to lobby members of the 3 branches of govt. Make corporations EARN it like their grand daddy did - DIY.

Lower the price tag on seats in Congress and the POTUS, make the SCOTUS an elected position and force full disclosure of all conflict-of-interest by members in committees and on the bench.

We can do it.

[markpkessinger]

18. Public Campaign financing for sure -- but be careful what you wish for on the "Term Limits" thing...

...If we had full public campaign financing for all elective office, and prevented ALL private contributions to candidates (from individuals or corporations). But term limits? Think about that for a minute: think of some of the legendary legislators (Ted Kennedy, Paul Simon, Jacob Javits, and many others) who would never have become legendary legislators in just a term or two.

[Rex]

19. I would be willing to go for ten years or more.

I'm not stuck at 2 or 4 years...but sometimes people need to be stopped and that is the only way...think Strom Thurmond.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. the top 10 securities and investment firm donors 1989 -2010 and the top 10 recipients

I will just link to this information - to avoid any bias on reporting this data:

link:

http://influenceexplorer.com/industry/securities-investment/0af3f418f426497e8bbf916bfc074ebc?cycle=-1




.

[Aerows]

21. This is DU

And it's taboo for me to say anything bad about the Democratic party, but I'm going to say it anyway. Any member of the Democratic party that doesn't stand with OWS stands against my personal political beliefs. We've strayed way too far to the right in this country to the point where greed is a virtue. Greed isn't a virtue. Greed isn't self-reliance, and greed isn't self-preservation. Those are good goals. Greed is addiction to power, money and attention.

When it reaches the point where you accumulate so much that you think it is a virtue to deny those in your own society, those in your neighborhood and those in your own household the very things that provide care and sustenance, you are plain selfish. There is no other way to put it. Selfishness is not a virtue, it's a sin. Gluttony is not a virtue, and worshipping having a glut of money is not a benefit to society when you take it to the point where you would destroy others for having that glut.

Some in our party have strayed to the right, I'm not going to support them, I cannot support them, and their love of the laws of our land and the love of the people of this nation is lacking. I cannot support that, will not, and believe our party can be better than that.

[mdmc]

22. +1