Should Obama forcefully speak out against the violent police crackdown on Occupy Wall Street?

[Cali_Democrat]

[Sheepshank]

1. no

[sakabatou]

2. He needs to talk to Bloomberg about the media blackout.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. The media is reporting on OWS

Even media owned by Bloomberg:

http://search1.bloomberg.com/search/?content_type=all&page=1&q=occupy

[FrenchieCat]

3. I think that is the job of the 99%.....who represent a cause that is supposed to be bipartisan

according to most....
and because it is part and parcel of the reason they are occupying Wall Street in the first place.....
speaking out forcefully on their own behalf is supposed to be a part of what they are about, I would think.

As we all know, speaking out forcefully against TPTB comes with consequences....such as violence and unfair treatment, and so I would suggest that enduring and staying strong is the way to go....
Just ask the Civil Right protestors of days gone by,

Is it the job of Barack Obama to speak of the 99%? I think that he will, although I don't
know when, nor what he will say. Is it our job to demand that he does, or else demand
that he be damned? Certainly it can be....but we should also understand the obvious;
that he will be damned no matter what he says,
and I'm not so sure that encouraging him to be damned should be the focus of this movement.....
as damming him only provides opportunity for his opposition to take over as soon as
they get the chance; and that result will make the 99% pay dearly so much more--
and would only benefit those in the 1 percentile; the very ones that this protest is aimed at.

[elleng]

7. He's said this:

“The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,” Obama said. “And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”

[paulk]

28. gosh!

maybe he could talk his Justice Dept. into prosecuting some of the people that got us into this mess -

“And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”

talk is mighty cheap, and Obama's talk has been some of the cheapest so far...

[LooseWilly]

31. It really is all about the job description— and this isn't in Obama's...

If he were to try to hold the financial sector accountable for their gross negligence, it would seem like a sort of favoritism... and that sort of cronyism might cost political capital that could otherwise be used for worthy campaign promises like the closing of Guantanamo, or the winding down of the Iraq war on W's schedule.

And besides... if Obama were to contribute effort to support an effort to hold Wall St. accountable for what they did to the economy... accountability and regulation enforcement also, obviously, having nothing to do with his job description, then it would only embolden opponents of the movement, and distract from the leaderless achievements of the movement, and open Obama to potential blame laying by opponents to the OWS movement in the future.

As you say.. he's damned no matter what he says or does. (I assume he was also ex-communicated for his work on devising a means of controlling his own message ...) I assume that he'll know better than to think that there is any behavior that might help him to evade the damnation sentence...

[lamp_shade]

4. Absolutely not.

[elleng]

5. No. He's said

'“The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,” Obama said. “And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”'

and he should keep the Feds OUT of this otherwise.

[shraby]

6. If he can admonish Mubarek and Kaddafi, he certainly can

admonish our mayors for pulling the same sh*t.

[FirstLight]

10. exactly

that's a big part of it... and the fact that people keep quoting his 'statement' from an OCT 18th interview as if he has already said something...

that was before the shit hit the fan and people ended up in the hospital, PARALYZED!!!

so, ya, If he wants us to think he gives a shit about CONSTITUTIONAL rights being shit on, he SHOULD say SOMETHING!!!

[noiretextatique]

8. the obvious answer is yes

he's spoken about liberation movements in other countries, so why not his own? an 81 yr old man in portland was dragged from a crowd and his head was banged on concrete. and 84 year old woman and a 19 year old woman pregnant were sprayed with pepper spray. all of this is happening in the supposed "land of the free," not in libya or eqypt or syria, but here, in the supposedly beacon of democracy and free speech. his silence in complicity. for fuck's sake...forget about politics and moderation and all of that nonsense and stand up for the democracy you claim to support elsewhere.

[msongs]

9. meaningless words with out action just waste time nt

[jaxx]

11. No.

It's odd that those who want OWS kept non-political would want the President to politicize it. You can't have it both ways.

[ellisonz]

14. Exactly.

[GoCubsGo]

23. Bingo!

[rug]

27. What is political about police attacking protesters?

[movonne]

12. I think he did on the way other countries treated their people..

[Cali_Democrat]

13. kick

[ellisonz]

15. A lot of law enforcement hate him even more than they hate the protestors...

It'd just enrage the bastards.

[Number23]

16. Didn't we answer another utterly meaningless question just like this one already?

[lunatica]

17. The OWS don't need him or anyone they're Occupying against

He represents the government and at this time they are being non political. I think he wants to let them do their thing, like he let Wisconsinites do their thing. He is perfectly aware that his support would be the kiss of death.

Even during the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movements Presidents stayed out of it until the movements grew too large. Hell! Nixon was the one who introduced the violence during the peace movement. He hated it because the movement was growing very strong and it was against his escalation of the Vietnam war and his lying about going into Cambodia.

[chill_wind]

18. Apparently not. Condemnation seems purely reserved

for suppression, repression and police violence in other countries and the tacit approval and silence of their leaders.

[Autumn]

20. Yes. We elected him to represent us and to stand up for the

Constitution. It isn't just a god damn piece of paper. If he can't stand for us , why bother voting for him again.:shrug:

[quakerboy]

21. In a better world, with a president known for activism

yes.

In our world, with this president, no. He should, however, Quietly direct federal agencies deny and refute all requests for assistance in suppressing the rights of peaceful protestors. And to devote federal resources to investigation/doccumentation of these interactions, holding violent parties accountable for their acts.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. It looks like the 'Yes' votes are gonna take this one

Well done, guys :toast:

[BklnDem75]

24. That and a dollar will buy me a nice cup of coffee

Yum!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

25. No. Unless it happens in Occupy Egypt. nt

[Whisp]

26. if Obama is supposedly 'worse than Bush' by too many here...

why would he speak out against it?

Either Obama is evil and things like this shouldn't be expected of him,
or he's not that evil after all.

[Vinca]

29. Yes he should speak out. It's the right thing to do.

It's not a police "crackdown," it's excessive force.

[otohara]

30. Yes, It's National

not a state issue, county or city.

[boppers]

32. False premise.

It's painful to hear first world "activists" complain about "crackdowns" that involve something as minor as macing, or a beating.

It's nice to be privileged.

How many were raped?

Murdered?

How many families were extinguished?