Groups to protest at Democratic convention in North Carolina

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Groups to protest at Democratic convention in North Carolina
Saturday September 1, 2012, 2:55 PM
Associated Press

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Several groups, including labor organizations and those opposing President Barack Obama's positions on various issues, plan to demonstrate outside the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte in tge coming days. On Sunday, protesters will take part in the March on Wall Street South — a demonstration that will focus on economic inequality, social injustice and other issues. It will kick off a week of protests and rallies by groups such as:

— Occupy Wall Street. A protest movement that began last year and claims that corporations have undue influence over the U.S. government, its activities have fizzled somewhat in 2012. The nationwide movement has issued a call for protesters for the Democratic convention in Charlotte, where an Occupy Charlotte tent city was disbanded last winter.

— AFL-CIO. The largest federation of labor unions in the United States, it is hoping to put a spotlight on worker issues, especially those specific to North Carolina. The state has the lowest percentage of unionized workers in the United States. The group is planning a massive canvassing effort this fall in all 50 states to turn out voters for Obama.

— Southern Workers Assembly. A coalition of labor groups fighting for collective bargaining and other labor issues in the South, it plans to have a major presence in the city to highlight the impact of anti-union laws in the South.


Read more: http://www.northjersey.com/news/Groups_to_protest_at_Democratic_convention_in_North_Carolina.html

[totodeinhere]

1. That's OK. What would a convention be without protests?

But having said that I suspect that most members of those groups listed in the article will end up voting for President Obama. They will have nowhere else to turn.

[customerserviceguy]

2. Hopefully Charlotte 2012 does not turn into Chicago 1968 n/t

[LovingA2andMI]

3. Peaceful Protesting....

Should be encouraged and allowed. It's called "How a Democracy SHOULD work".

[demosincebirth]

4. The ones who will probably cause some shit will the the usual group of anarchists who just look

for any gathering of protesters to cause damage and start trouble just for the sake of it. Just like in Oakland. It cost the city millions in damage to property. I hope it won't happen...just keeping it peaceful will do more for our cause.

[defacto7]

11. This time, imagine being paid to start a riot.

No info... just wondering. Everyone had better be on guard to thwart such efforts and not let anyone push a situation to the brink.

[Ken Burch]

17. I predict that It will eventually turn out, once the FOI requests are answered in twenty years,

those "anarchists" were mainly freshmen at the local police academies.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

45. That has already been verified.

[progressivebydesign]

5. Lol. Good LUCK labor groups and OWS. I know you'll Enjoy Romney/Ryan/Rove.

Gotta love the republicans.. regardless of how putrid their candidate is, even this year, they are not shooting themselves in the foot.

Anyone in a union that is NOT working to re-elect President Obama, deserves to have the people in office that have made it their life's work to destroy the unions and send union jobs overseas.

Yeah.. OWS.. goog luck with that. Helping to elect the biggest fucking crook on Wall Street.

[DerekG]

6. What a depressing post

You honestly don't believe that people who are disturbed by the kill lists, drone bombings, prospective austerity cuts, and the burgeoning executive power have no right to protest Obama.

[2pooped2pop]

7. actually most of these people will probably be voting for Obama

they have some legit gripes and while I wish they would take it up with him after the elections, it is their right and their message has a chance to be heard here.

There should be no violence. It's up to the police really.

These are not teabaggers.

[Ken Burch]

15. OWS is not helping Romney.

In fact, the only reason Obama is ahead is that he's responded at least partially to the OWS challenge and is beginning to talk about corporate power.

He was doomed to lose this year if he kept sounding like he did in 2010-when he wasn't fighting for anything.

[Ken Burch]

18. You can't seriously be arguing that anybody who wants to stop Romney/Ryan/Rove

has an obligation NOT to protest.

It's not like a bland convention would lead to anything good in a second Obama term.

[wildeyed]

23. I plan to rally with Planned Parenthood on Tuesday.

I want the politicians and DNC members to SEE us. We are supporters, but they need to see that we are serious about our issues and will hold their feet to the fire after the election. I suspect that many of these "demonstrations" are actually rallies for issue visibility within the party.

Getting ready to go downtown and see the OWS march.

[LeftyMom]

39. You are not a progressive.

NOBODY

deserves to have the people in office that have made it their life's work to destroy the unions and send union jobs overseas[/div class="excerpt"]and that degree of willingness to see people suffer as some sick punishment for insufficient loyalty? That's absolutely disgusting and beneath contempt. Personality cult behavior best relegated to the dustbin of history.

[pnwmom]

8. Why weren't the labor unions protesting at the RNC?

Are they cutting off their feet to spite their faces?

[starroute]

9. You save your energy for where you have some chance of being heard

Protesting the Republicans, especially when Bush was in power, may have felt good but it didn't do diddly. Protesting the Democrats may nudge them onto the right track.

[pnwmom]

12. Or this could turn into Chicago 1968, when it was a big boost for Nixon.

We'll see how it goes.

[Ken Burch]

16. There's no equivalent to Vietnam, though.

And you don't have a situation in which anybody can claim to be as unjustly treated as the antiwar left and liberal could claim to be in Chicago.

BTW, it was Johnson's fault that Nixon won...Johnson made that a certainty by forcing Humphrey to be nominated as an all-out hawk on an arrogantly pro-war platform...Humphrey nearly closed the gap when he finally broke with Johnson(but Johnson made sure he couldn't by cutting off big Democratic donations to Humphrey's campaign).

All the Dems had to do to win in '68 is to admit the primaries mattered and adopt a platform that reflected that. It was Johnson's fault that they didn't. Clearly, we have to come to the conclusion that he WANTED Nixon to win.

[MFrohike]

20. Pure fantasy

LBJ wanted Nixon to win? That's just stupid. Nixon erased half of his domestic legacy and cemented the foreign policy failures by prolonging the war. LBJ might have been the smartest man ever to be president. Your conclusion is that he wanted the Great Society, his version of the New Deal, to be wiped out by the most hated Republican of the post-war period. Seriously?

[Ken Burch]

21. Nixon largely left the Great Society alone in his first term, though.

My theory is that Nixon and Johnson cut the following deal:
Nixon would more or less leave the programs intact through the '72 election in exchange for Johnson making sure that Humphrey couldn't catch him in '68. Nixon didn't propose major cuts until the day after he was sworn in again in '73-and that announcement probably caused Johnson's fatal heart attack the next day.

You can't honestly think Johnson wanted Humphrey to win-Johnson KNEW the status quo Vietnam war plank he forced Humphrey to agree to would guarantee his defeat. That is the only possible reason he could have had to force Humphrey to be nominated as an all-out hawk.

[MFrohike]

29. Again, fantasy

Only possible reason? No. The more likely explanation is that Johnson was human and acted emotionally. He reacted badly at the thought of his protege splitting from him on a big part of his legacy.

The idea that LBJ would ever make a deal with Nixon over his domestic legacy is just wrong. LBJ was to the left of Truman and Roosevelt. He spent over 30 years brooding over the poverty he'd seen in Cotulla. Your idea that he made a deal with Nixon would be like Lincoln, had he lived, cutting a deal with his successor to re-divide the union. I don't quite understand how the father of modern Social Security and Medicare would really make a deal with Richard Nixon, the devil himself for the 20th century liberal, to destroy much of his legacy. It makes no sense at all.

[Ken Burch]

30. It makes perfect sense, if you accept the argument(as a lot of us do)

That keeping this country in Vietnam was far more important, for reasons of ego and stubbornness(plus a fatal addiction to "American Exceptionalism&quot to LBJ than keeping the Democratic Party in the White House and preserving or expanding the Great Society programs.

Johnson knew what he had to let Humphrey do to win. And he wouldn't let him do it.

It's totally unfair to blame the antiwar movement for Nixon's ascendancy when Johnson has so much responsibility for the result in 1968. Johnson KNEW that Humphrey had no chance of uniting the party in time if he forced him to be nominated as an all-out hawk-but he made Humphrey do that anyway.

[MFrohike]

32. Yeah, that's just dead wrong

He consciously spent years modeling himself after FDR. He spent a lot of time trying to get his office and reporters to refer to him as LBJ as a subconscious nod to FDR (the idea of being referred to as a set of initials). Poor people didn't put FDR's picture on the wall because of WW2, they did it because of the New Deal. To this day, the fact that FDR was president during WW2 is kind of an afterthought in terms of his real legacy. No man who put that much effort into trying to imitate another man so closely would sacrifice the programs that he trumpeted as being inspired by his hero for a losing proxy war on the edge of nowhere.

LBJ was used to controlling Hubert and allowed no room for dissent. I suspect it was hard for him to logically separate himself from an issue that was so intertwined with his presidency.

I didn't blame anyone for anything. Hubert lost because he was perceived as being too close to Johnson, which was a pretty astute observation. I'm a huge fan of both of them, but if the average voter was turned off by Johnson, he made a logical choice in rejecting Hubert as more of the same. Granted, that choice was absurd because the alternate choice was Tricky Dick, but that's how it goes sometimes.

Just as a point of fact, opposition to the war increased as casualties did. I honestly think the antiwar movement really had little to do with creating opposition to that war. I think it was the weekly body counts that did it.

[Ken Burch]

34. I admire what LBJ did with the Great Society(in truth, the programs basically worked

contrary to the right-wing lies).

He should have left it all at dealing with domestic issues...that was his strong suit.

[MFrohike]

36. You're right

He understood, in way that no Democratic president since has understood, the demoralizing nature of poverty. He was a liberal in the gut, not the head. Those programs were geared to bring people up from the 19th century, or worse, and into the present. Most of all, he wasn't the guy who would tell you what couldn't be done. These days, no matter the party, all we ever hear is what we can't do, what we have to accept, what is just "reality," etc. That was not LBJ. Maybe we can't do everything, at least not all at once, but I'm damn tired of hearing what we can't do. I'd much rather fail miserably while trying for the stars rather than feeling smug in the dirt.

Foreign policy was not his strong suit. To be fair, he inherited a ton of problems. He was also maybe too afraid of a "who lost China" moment in regard to Vietnam. Vietnam was a damn mess from the moment Diem was killed. I don't know that anybody could have salvaged it, but maybe it was possible to pull out in 68 and avoid a lot of the later pain. It was a rough time, with the Soviets on the rise, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, general discontent around the globe. I don't mean to sound like there was nothing that could be done, I just marvel at what a dangerous time it was. I'm not sure anytime since the 30s was like it.

[Ken Burch]

37. I think pride and ego came into his choices in '68, in part.

One thing very few people are good at is accepting the idea of being shown up, or being shown that they aren't as necessary as they may have thought.

After LBJ became obliged to withdraw from his re-election campaign, I think that he decided that, much as he cared for the Great Society programs, he couldn't stand the idea of his party not only denying him renomination, but then going on to win without him. The ultimate nightmare for him would probably have been being watching RFK getting sworn in to replace him-with Bobby then getting credit for ending the war that, frankly, he and his brother had stuck LBJ with. After Bobby's death, it's likely that simply the idea of his being succeeded by another Democratic president, even Humphrey, would have been, at some level, too much for him to take. This, as much as anything else, is why I think he forced Humphrey to get nominated in a way that he had to have known(as did Humphrey himself, who had begged Johnson to let him back a compromise plank on Vietnam that could have brought the party together)would, combined with the horribly arrogant way that Peace Democrats were treated in the convention hall that week, let alone how Daley brutalized the protesters, make it impossible for Humphrey to have any chance of uniting the party and winning the election.

Humphrey was able to make it close because he finally made a partial break with LBJ on the war in late September-a step that allowed him to nearly erase a thirteen-point Nixon lead in one month, and because the peace Dems treated Humphrey far better than the party regulars and the pro-war diehards treated McGovern four years later.

In answer to something you said earlier, I think the casualty rates had something to do with the public swing against the war...but the courageous work of the antiwar movement also had a lot to do with it. It's not as though there weren't high casualties in the world wars and in Korea, after all. I'm not sure why you would want to deny that the antiwar movement deserves any credit for that...it was made up of people of conscience, some of whom faced violent retribution for their stand, who worked as hard as they could to stop the killing and get the truth out to the people. It serves no purpose that I can see to act as if all they did was for nothing.

We won't see eye to eye on this, but I appreciate the tone you've conducted yourself with in these exchanges. It's been interesting and I've learned some things.

[MFrohike]

42. Right and wrong

You nailed it when you talked about pride. That's the point I was trying, and failing, to make.

Casualty rates mattered in Korea, just like in Vietnam. Around 20k dead, public opinion began turning against the war. WW2 was a different case, as a direct war against the Soviets would have been, because it was not a proxy war that was part of a larger struggle. WW2 was the struggle. I think the later antiwar protests, post 68, were evidence of the dissatisfaction of much of the public with the war. Well, Kent State might have been an example of protests changing opinion. I tend to undervalue protests because they rarely do much on their own. Kent State was transcendent for obvious reasons.

As an aside, I don't think RFK had a snowball's chance in hell of ending that war. He'd have been in Johnson's position, with Republicans supporting him on it and Democrats opposing him. Not only that, but when it came out that he and his brother acquiesced in the murder of Diem, the fallout would have been so terrible that I don't know how to describe it. It's one thing to lose a war, it's quite another to be the guy behind the single most destabilizing event of that war. Maybe if he'd gone for an immediate pullout and had promised to continue the struggle (the Cold War, not Vietnam) in no uncertain terms? It's hard to say. I'm not a fan of RFK and I tend to dismiss his chances of success as president, but maybe he could have done it.

Good discussion.

[Ken Burch]

43. Protest, in and of itself, doesn't lead to change.

The key is the actions that protest, among other factors, cause people to believe and then to do.

Legally-enforced Jim Crow didn't end just because people sang "We Shall Overcome", or just because people rode on those buses, or just because Dr. King gave some speeches, or just because those little girls were blown up in that church and those young men were buried under that earthen dam...the change occurred because of the combination of all of the above and other factors as well. But protest was and is part of the process of change. It's part of how the demand is made to power.

[24601]

25. Although with VN, LBJ wasn't targeting US citizens for assassination. The drone hellfire strikes

have taken this issue to a new (low) level. Secret kill lists with US citizens - without the benefit of any judicial proceeding should be debated.

[Ken Burch]

31. I'm as anti-drone as you are. Just saying the situation won't have the same vibe

with a lot of people.

[24601]

41. I really don't judge the times as equivalent. In VN, we drafted troops while today, every one is a

volunteer.

As controversial as strikes against US citizens are, there isn't a general condemnation to the degree VN was protested. Drone strikes are far more surgical than VN-era B-52 ARCLIGHT carpet bombing missions. Advances in targeting means that non-combatant deaths are far lower than in prior conflicts.

The primary disagreement I have is with the premeditated strikes against US citizens who are at that moment not engaged in attacks against US forces - when force protection rules of engagement would trump combatants rights of due process by an unbiased 3rd party, like a court.

So the political question is what you do with a President that approves these strikes?

[CBHagman]

27. "Protesting the Democrats may nudge them onto the right track."

I'm glad you added that qualifier -- may. Given that we have 24/7 media coverage chiefly by corporations, there's a greater likelihood of the whole thing being spun as a divided progressive movement, especially when we've seen protests devolve into something other than their purported purpose of late.

Protests have their purpose but I'm not holding my breath, and I am very concerned about potential weakening of progressive causes.

[a la izquierda]

13. +1

Totally agree with you. This is weird.

[Luminous Animal]

24. They were...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/30/florida-union-marchers-take-on-the-gop.html

Unfortunately, because of the storm, other union members from around the country couldn't make it. Bus companies canceled their contracts.

More than 200 teachers, pipe fitters, and other public and private union workers marched in Tampa’s muggy heat on Wednesday night, chanting against a Republican platform that union leaders say may be the death knell of organized labor.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)-sponsored “Welcome to Mitt Romney’s America” parade was the largest march on day three of the Republican National Convention and followed the official parade route through a desolate part of downtown Tampa to a designated event zone that is far from the eyes of delegates at the convention forum. The labor demonstrator’s audience was primarily hundreds of law enforcement officers on bicycles, horses, rooftops, and the overpass of a closed expressway.

[LeftyMom]

38. Because there was tropical storm.

How'd you miss that tidbit? It was in all the papers.

[wordpix]

44. good question - let's remember Scott Walker and his Koch buddies are R

[starroute]

10. Occupy Charlotte is back -- at least for the week

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48869938/ns/local_news-charlotte_nc/t/occupy-charlotte-re-opens-camp-blocks-dnc-site/

Occupy Charlotte protesters reopened their uptown encampment late Friday night at Marshall Park, a site where they expect hundreds to camp, demonstrate and sleep during the Democratic National Convention.

And protesters said they have invited other protest groups to share the park space, including demonstrators who set up the “Romneyville” encampment near the site of the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

Occupy Charlotte organizers say they have talked with Charlotte-Mecklenburg police leaders, who they said would allow the demonstrators to camp at Marshall Park throughout the convention. Buses containing as many as 100 people were expected to arrive by early Saturday morning, though protesters said there could be many more by the end of the weekend.

“There’s been some conversation with the city,” said Scottie Wingfield, an organizer with Occupy Charlotte. “We said we wanted to be in a public space. This is traditionally a park where people have met to protest.”

[Ken Burch]

14. Will Medea Benjamin go for a "two-for"?

n/t.

[Cha]

19. I didn't see anything about OWS Ocuppying

Tampa?

[LeftyMom]

40. LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=occupy+tampa+rnc

[iamthebandfanman]

22. id be completely more than fine

with this..
if they had been outside the RNC convention.

dont give that lame 'where we can be heard' crap... there were cameras there too.

[a geek named Bob]

26. If people

can't see the difference between Obama and Romney...

They will get EXACTLY what they deserve.

Too bad WE'LL get what the idjits are pushing for, as well...

[hughee99]

28. I see Codepink will be there as well.

Not for Afghanistan, but in support of OWS.

http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=6192

[bitchkitty]

33. Love that 1st Amendment! n/t

[MrSlayer]

35. We're tired of the Democrats pissing on us.

They're supposed to be the party of labor but they're corporate suckholes. Clinton came from a right to work state and was all about that shit. Pelosi runs a scab company and only uses scab workers. Obama's chief of staff was scabo number one in Chicago. And then they slap us in the face with this scab convention, in a scab state, staying in all scab hotels. They talk a good game but always fuck us over. It's time to stand up to them and withhold money. We're going to vote for them but they had better heed the warning. What difference does it make which party kills us in the end? They're both going in the same direction.

We need a labor party because don't have one anymore. Haven't had one since the eighties.