Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Glenn Greenwald: Here's how White House aligned groups are going to try and co-opt OWS movement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 09:58 PM
Original message
Glenn Greenwald: Here's how White House aligned groups are going to try and co-opt OWS movement


Here’s what attempted co-option of OWS looks like
By Glenn Greenwald
November 19, 2011


As I noted several weeks ago, WH-aligned groups such as the Center for American Progress have made explicitly clear that they are going to try to convert OWS into a vote-producing arm for the Obama 2012 campaign, and that’s what “Occupy Congress” is designed to achieve. I believed then and — having spent the last few weeks talking with many OWS protesters around the country — believe even more so now that these efforts will inevitably fail: those who have animated the Occupy movement are not motivated by partisan allegiance or an overarching desire to devote themselves to one of the two parties. In fact, one of the original Occupy groups — as opposed to partisan organizations swooping in to exploit it — has announced its own D.C. occupation to, in part, “demonstrate the failure of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress to represent the views of the majority of people.”

But whatever else is true, the notion — advanced by SEIU (Service Employees International Union) — that it’s the Democratic Party and the Obama White House working to bring about these changes and implant these values of the 99% is so self-evidently false as to be insulting. Agitating for passage of the jobs bill is a perfectly reasonable and sensible step, but how can casting that in such starkly partisan terms be justified when numerous key Democratic officials opposed the bill and prevented its passage (just as an always-changing roster of numerous key Democrats — the Villains of the Moment — almost always act to protect the interests of Washington’s permanent ruling factions)?

Beyond that, and more important, does SEIU think that people will just ignore these key political facts? How does anyone think these protesters will be convinced that it’s exclusively the GOP — and not the Democratic Party and the Obama WH — who “protect the rich” when: Wall Street funded the Democrats far more than the GOP in the 2008 election; the Democrats’ key money man, Charles Schumer, is one of the most devoted Wall Street servants in the country; Obama empowered in key positions Wall Street servants such as Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Bill Daley, Rahm Emanuel, and an endless roster of former Goldman officials; JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon has been dubbed “Obama’s favorite banker” after Obama publicly defended his post-bailout $17 million bonus; the President named the CEO of GE to head his jobs panel; the DCCC and DSCC exist to ensure the nomination of corporatist candidates and Blue Dogs whose political worldview is servitude to the lobbyist class; the Democratic President, after vocally urging an Age of Austerity, tried very hard to usher in cuts to Social Security and an increase in the age for Medicare eligibility; and the Obama administration has not only ensured virtually no accountability for the rampant Wall Street fraud that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis, but is actively pressuring New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and others to agree to a woefully inadequate settlement to forever shield banks from the consequences of their pervasive mortgage fraud.

That’s just a fraction of the facts one could list to document the actual factions to which the Democratic Party has devoted itself. If one wants to argue that the GOP is more opposed to progressive economic policies than Democrats, that’s certainly reasonable. If one wants to argue that, on balance, voting for Democrats is more likely to bring about marginally more of those policies than abstaining, I think that, too, is reasonable. But to try to cast the Democratic Party and the Obama administration as the vessel for the values and objectives of the Occupy movement is just dishonest in the extreme: in fact, it’s so extreme that it’s very unlikely to work. Those who believe that further empowerment of the Democratic Party is what is most urgently needed can make their case and should pursue that goal — they should try to generate as much citizen enthusiasm as possible behind them — but they should stop trying to depict and exploit the Occupy movement as an instrument for their agenda.



Read the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/19/heres_what_attempted_co_option_of_ows_looks_like/singleton/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Occupyers need to take the Democratic Party over.
As the idiot teabaggers did with the Republicans last year. Knock the corporatist pieces of shit right out of the party with real grassroots. The DLC, third way, blue dog part of the party has got to go. And go NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The chances of that happening are somewhere between zero and none.
Edited on Sat Nov-19-11 10:15 PM by Better Believe It
Progressives and liberals have been working on that relentlessly for several decades.

So how they doing?

They are farther from achieving that objective than ever.

2012 won't be any different.

Oh wait .... one United States Senator is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus!

And just a decade ago there were none!

Guess you could consider that incremental progress toward taking over the Democratic Party.

Oh wait a second .... that one Congressional Progressive Caucus Senator is not a member of the Democratic Party .... it's Senator Sanders, the socialist from Vermont!

Big corporate and Wall Street money is now firmly in control of the government and their two political parties.

They will be picking up most of the tab for both political conventions next summer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Start at the bottom.
We're stuck with Obama at the top no matter what so we need to attack from below. The radical right did it over a period of time and started at the bottom. It's a long row to hoe for sure but we have to try. If we don't even make an attempt there is no point to any of this. OWS is just pissing in the wind. Are you saying we shouldn't try to fight because the game is already over? I often feel that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. OWS is not "pissing in the wind" as you put it. We should fight on our terms and build movements.

We must build massive independent movements for change if we want to fight effectively and win. But, if you'd rather try to take over the Democratic Party and make it a party that represents working people go ahead.

Don't let me stop you just because so many others have tried and failed in that endeavor for decades.

Good luck to you and let me know how you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. If all you do is see this from a partisan point of view yup
you could say they are pissing in the wind.

TWO major successes so far...

Why do you think we are talking of income inequality? OWS
Why do you think they are STARTING to talk of money and politics? OWS

THere is more, if they were NOT seen as a threat... you would not have these rumors of Op Research from a very well known company (Republican) and their fear of an alliance between T Parties and OWS... nor would you have this talk of co option by the Democratic party. You do not do that with unsuccessful movements.

Oh and the talking ponts, narratives, memes. whatever name you want to use here... I now see as trial balloons by precisely Democratic Party Operatives.

Yup, go ahead, call me cynical... I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #19
38. Three. Jobs. And me, too. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
41. The right wing takeover took about 20 years.
We don't have that kind of time. In 20 years we are likely not to have a US government, at least under the current constitution. Under current ecological trends, world civilization is more likely to have collapsed than not, IMO. We are at the very end of our rope in terms of taking radical environmental action to save world civilization. That is what scientists are now telling us. Scientists at the IEA and James Hansen, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
28. Not hardly. Most of the ones I hang with have been doing issue-specific organizing
--and ignoring electoral politics. I was active on health care for the last 20 years, but did zero work on elections until 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. T Party was a rebranding effort led
by shadowy figures who cooped the movement. Citizens for Prosperity is NOT grassroots.

Oh it WAS populist rage in the beginning. It took a week or so for the effort and eventual success (six months) to take it over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. How are we doing so far?
Wellstone...KIA

Feingold....Gone


Grayson....Gone


McKinney....Gone


Wiener.....Gone


Kucinich....Marginalized, Redistricted


Dean.....Marginalized, discredited, banished


Meanwhile, The White House, Democratic Party Leadership, DSCC/DCCC endorsing, campaigning, and funding Republicans in Democratic Primaries (Specter), and "Blue Dog" Democrats who crow about derailing the Democratic Party agenda (Lincoln, Democratic Primary Arkansas 2010, among others in 2010.)

So, how is that working out so far? :shrug:

It is tough enough to fight the Republicans to get real Democrats elected,
but having to fight the Democratic Party Establishment and the White House to get "Democrats" elected makes it nearly impossible.




The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85


Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. What if this was started by people allied with the WH?
eg Van Jones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Van Jones was dumped by the White House because of right-wing Republican demands.

Remember that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. That does not mean that he is not involved in this. He is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. That's true. Perhaps he wasn't shoved under the bus hard enough.

Sometimes people continue slaming their head against a wall hoping beyond hope that someday the wall will crash down and their head won't hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I have no clue as to what you are saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. You don't know what happened to him? Well, here's how he was dumped by the White House
The White House simply refused to defend Jones when he came under attack from the far right Republicans. BBI




White House Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy Over Past Activism
By Scott Wilson and Garance Franke-Ruta
September 6, 2009

White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned late Saturday after a simmering controversy over his past statements and activism erupted into calls for his ouster from Republican leaders on Friday.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sunday explained the resignation on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," saying, "Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual." The president does not endorse Jones's past statements and actions, "but he thanks him for his service," Gibbs said.


Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck launched the drive against Jones and all but declared war on him after a group Jones founded in 2005, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) called on Jones to resign Friday, saying in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."

Read the full article at:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/van_jones_resigns.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Van Jones offered to quit.
He was not "dumped".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #21
37. If the White House had defended him do you think Van Jones would have "quit"?

But Obama caved into Republican demands .... setting the tone for the next two years.

And White House statements did not defend him against the smears.

And Obama refused to say one fricken word in defense of Van Jones.

Jones quit .... sure he did .... without the least bit of pressure from the White House I'm sure.

Get real.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. I have faith in Van Jones.
He is one smart dude, and he is not twisted into a pretzel because one path was blocked. He saw another one, and it is what you are seeing now. It is probably more effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Lots of groups are supporting OWS, but they aren't really "involved" in it.
Some of the unions have demonstrated with OWS, but in the end, they do not have any say in the organization which is pretty much ad hoc. Watch some of the livestream. The people who happen to be at an OWS site at a particular time meet in the General Assembly and speak and make decisions. It is very fluid, very spontaneous and could not be easily co-opted because it is so democratic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
44. Van Jones withdrew on his own.
Edited on Sun Nov-20-11 03:08 PM by Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
He felt the media circus was too distracting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. It wasn't. Van Jones has a separate movement -- Rebuild the American Dream.
The OWS movement is a protest movement very different from any movement I have ever seen and totally unrelated to the Democratic Party.

Some activists in the OWS movement are Democrats, but a number of them are Libertarians and a few are Republicans. Most probably aren't enthusiastic about either party at this time.

There are a lot of disgruntled, disappointed Democrats out there, and they aren't going to suddenly get enthusiastic about the Democrats who have let them down.

Will they vote Democratic if the Democratic candidate is better than the Republican, maybe yes -- if they vote at all.

The OWS movement is about the fact that partisan politics is not working for the country. We need a new approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_ed_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
36. Do you realize how much money Goldmann-Sachs gave to Obama?
If not, google "Obama's #1 campaign contributor."

Then take a look and see who Obama has as Secretary of the Treasury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. I see this a lot, trying to equate what the OWS goals are with the Democratic
party, and saying these people better vote for the Democrats. They are missing that many also think the Democrats are part of the problem too, and its not only the republicans to blame for the screwed up state of our country. Anyone who takes a brief look at the past 3 years can see that, policy after policy that is centrist/right and not a damn thing for the left, except a few tiny crumbs.

The Democrats badly need a wake up call and perhaps OWS can be the impetus to that, and move radically to the left instead of continuing to attempt to form a bipartisan consensus of doom with the bottom dwelling and utterly disgusting GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. The 2008 gains
were due to such co-opting of the peace movement, the actual use of voting power with similar gusto and better cause than the Tea Party crushing of said rubber spine a few years later. The benefit of that doubt has long gone and it would have not have taken extreme measures to keep and build on it. Weakness, apparent betrayal. Counter example by loony GOP example that need never have been allowed as well.

Political sense is moribund. Inaction for the right thing apparently very comfortable. Action for the wrong, heroic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. LOL. OWS is more likely to produce votes for a write-in candidate
and even that seems unlikely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libinnyandia Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. That could very likely turn out like 2000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2pooped2pop Donating Member (212 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
30. agree
I think the democratic party will be surprised to learn that the occupiers are none too pleased with them either.

I don't know what they might do regarding the elections. I think a write in is possible. I do not think they will blanket-ly support any one party. They might throw their support to individual candidates. Dems should beware as the unions are with us now. And that's a big voting block that they may very well lose.

I just hope they don't choose to not vote at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
14. It won't work, in fact the more these groups do this, the more
Edited on Sat Nov-19-11 10:55 PM by sabrina 1
negative the reaction is to the party. This movement is made up of people who KNOW what is wrong with this country. The Dem Party had a chance to address the concerns of its base, instead they sent out their operatives to insult and demean them, to call their ideas retarded, to drive them off Democratic forums and/or to assume, and to blatantly say 'where ya gonna go, ya gonna vote for Palin'? That strategy probably drove more people to find a way to try to address the issues they once trusted the Dem Party to address, than any other factor. It was authoritarian, dismissive and nasty. And people were disgusted by it, but it did educate people. Whoever thought this would be a good strategy was either too stupid to get out of bed in the morning, or they harbor the same hatred for the liberal wing of the party that their cohorts on the right have.

It is disturbing now though to see some of those same bullies who drove so many to this movement, pretending to support it.

It will not work, people are a lot more, sadly, disillusioned but far more informed as to the reality of the political system than we were three years ago. There is no going back. As someone famous once said 'we have to look forward'.

Advice to Dems, get rid of the DLC wing of the party, then we'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
18. knr nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
24. I agree with the OP - THERE IS ONE FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION...

The 99% movement has massive global support. The values of this movement are universal and translate well across national borders. If the movement allowed itself to be co-opted by the Democrats (not very likely) then it would, in essence, be supporting Democratic neo-liberalism in its quest for global empire. This would run counter to the spirit of the movement and would certainly not benefit those struggling against the global 1%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. A global party at that! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. That is nonsense unless there is an ongoing voter contact database
In reality, people who say they want third parties really don't want them at all. If they did, they'd know that most people don't want to spend a lot of time working hard at social justice, but many of them might conceivably support the more active with their votes, provided that the activists knew who they were and pestered them about voting on a regular basis.

At a health care forum in Seattle a couple of months ago, I talked with a fellow from Socialist Alternative who said the usual stuff about starting a third party. I asked him what precinct he was in. The 43rd. No, that's your legislative district--what PRECINCT? He didn't know. I said that in a typical Seattle precinct with 400-700 voters, he could probably find 20-50 people who would consistently vote for a Socialist Alternative candidate, the catch being that almost none of them would subscribe to his newspaper or attend his meetings. What they would do is vote for his candidates, but only if they were identified, tracked and regularly cajoled. Had he ever considered doing that in his precinct, considering that he can get a CD of all current King County voters for just 35 dollars? No, he had not. Therefore, he has no standing for blathering about "building a third party."

With modern technology, there are many substitutes for money. Either you are interested in using them to win elections, or you are not. If you don't want to (at first) win, a well-defined and measurable alternative goal is the only useful alternative. Do or do not do. There is no "try."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. This movement is really not about status quo politics...

nor is it about replacing government. It's really more about enlightenment and getting people to take action against corruption. Governments will eventually fall into place or face the consequences. When you have a large enough mass of people taking part, speaking with one voice, then it becomes easier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. Correct, movements always carry the day for social advances. However--
--it still matters who holds public office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. 100% correct
Most of the existing parties on the planet are under the control of the neo-liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #24
46. +1. Democrats need to bag and bury the Third Way and neo-liberalism.
Because that makes the party too similar to the GOP.

We definitely don't need 2 republican parties.

Both parties are tools of the 1%.

Democrats just somewhat less so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
25. Glenn still "looking at Gary Johnson"? Like minded Republicans of DU, UNITE!!!
Try harder Glenn! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #25
39. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #25
49. but i already put money on the bothers of the effed up teeth!!1!
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
32. recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
33. If the White House was doing the right thing, OWS wouldn't exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
35. So Greenwald has spoken and OWS is not interested in
attracting democrats or union members. This should end well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #35
45. Democrats and Unions are already part of OWS.
Just as they are part of the 99%.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-11 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
40. Looks like Greenwald is pissed that not everyone is buying his narrative.
Edited on Sun Nov-20-11 11:21 AM by BzaDem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-11 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
47. Fortunately, the attempts of the establishment to buy out OWS is getting a NO SALE response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-11 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
48. Herding Occupy to the Dems is going on --
You can see it every day, right here on DU. :shrug:

Sorry, but O, Blue Dogs, DLC, Third Way, & New Democrats are all pole opposites of what Occupy stands for -- they need to go just as much as the GOPers if the People are to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
50. I don't see how wanting people to vote is bad.
This is a democracy. I think that's what they're supposed to do.

I'd say its obvious people should vote for democrats, but maybe I'm biased, where the salon writer is more open-minded?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC