rickyp wrote:According to the fellow who runs Occupy.com, which is apparently about to undergo a major renovation and expansion...interviewed on CBC radio this AM...the Occupy movement is now aiming at major demonstrations leading up to and centred upon May 1... I guess that will be featured heavily at occupy.com in the coming weeks....

So we'll see if they can generate any attention and participation ... Compared to John Stewart and Steven Colberts "demonstration" they'll have to go some. A sense of humour is always more attractive than too earnerst or too provocative...


In a recent NBC/The Wall Street Journal poll, 60 percent of Americans strongly agreed with the following statement:

The current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country. America needs to reduce the power of major banks and corporations and demand greater accountability and transparency. The government should not provide financial aid to corporations and should not provide tax breaks to the rich

If the leftist rabble had this attitude shift as a goal, then perhaps they were successful.
I suspect its this attitude shift that has seen Obama shift his strategic gears of late. Witness the departure of Daley the corporate fixer...

At the same time, 53% of adults believe – 33% strongly believe – the national debt and the size of government must be cut significantly, regulations on business should be pared back, and taxes should not be raised on anybody.

The findings create a split screen of American activism with more than half the country identifying either with Occupy Wall Street or the tea party movement – and a small group siding with both.. . .

But for policymakers, signals are mixed. Americans were also asked their feelings about another statement: “The national debt must be cut significantly by reducing spending and the size of government, including eliminating some federal agencies and programs. Regulations on business by the federal government should be reduced and instead, the private sector and individuals should have greater control. The government should not raise taxes on anyone.”

This time, 33% strongly agreed and 20% mildly agreed while 32% disagreed. But the party breakdown was clearer. Nearly 80% of Republicans agreed with the small government statement, while only 22% of Democrats agreed. Among tea party supporters, 91% agreed, while 63% of liberal Democrats disagreed.

rickyp wrote:

The current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country. America needs to reduce the power of major banks and corporations and demand greater accountability and transparency. The government should not provide financial aid to corporations and should not provide tax breaks to the rich

If the leftist rabble had this attitude shift as a goal, then perhaps they were successful.

Uhm. Wasn't this pretty much the Tea Party position as well?

rickyp wrote:It seems a mater of hypocrisy for Republicans to criticize Romneys Bain years then? But criticize they do, without regard to the incongruity of their arguements.

rickyp wrote:

Uhm. Wasn't this pretty much the Tea Party position as well?

Yes.
The only difference being that the Tea Party blamed only govnerment .
Whilst the occupy folk blame corporatism and a government that is a tool of the corporations...
Both groups seem to think the average American has been getting a raw deal at the expense of Wall Street.

If Obama is pivoting the way various commentators seem to think, he wants to appeal to this sentiment, blaming a do nothing Congress and unfeeling corporations for the current predicament. Nominating Romney may well draw these lines even clearer....and indeed make for an interesting November.

But for policymakers, signals are mixed. Americans were also asked their feelings about another statement: “The national debt must be cut significantly by reducing spending and the size of government, including eliminating some federal agencies and programs. Regulations on business by the federal government should be reduced and instead, the private sector and individuals should have greater control. The government should not raise taxes on anyone.”

This time, 33% strongly agreed and 20% mildly agreed while 32% disagreed. But the party breakdown was clearer. Nearly 80% of Republicans agreed with the small government statement, while only 22% of Democrats agreed. Among tea party supporters, 91% agreed, while 63% of liberal Democrats disagreed.

Note how the current crop of nominees are going after Romney over Bain Capital. For Tea Partiers Bain is as big a symbol of corruption as any government program. Despite the fact that Bain is also a pretty strong symbol of unfettered capitalism.

It seems a mater of hypocrisy for Republicans to criticize Romneys Bain years then? But criticize they do, without regard to the incongruity of their arguements.

WALLACE: Forget about distorting. That fact is all of the Republicans are going after Obama. But you guys are going after Mitt Romney.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, Mitt Romney is one of the candidates who was near the top, or at the top of their field. And so, he invites and deserves that scrutiny because he has been distorting and mischaracterizing the president's record.

And you know what? Other presidential candidate has taken that lying down and we're not going to. The fact is that this president has a remarkable record of beginning to getting the economy turned around, of fighting for the middle class and working families. Hold on one second.

WALLACE: No, no, I am trying to be fair.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: OK. Well --

WALLACE: No, I am trying to be fair. I understand --

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Why the scrutiny, because Mitt Romney has no convictions. He's someone who has flip flopped on every major issue and voters need to know.

WALLACE: Let me ask you a question. You go after -- let me ask you -- you go after Romney for laying off people at Bain Capital, correct?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, for a lot of things, related to his role at Bain Capital.

WALLACE: But that's one of them.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: For that. For outsourcing jobs --

WALLACE: Let me ask you about that. Is the president responsible for laying off the people at Solyndra?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, because the president wasn't the CEO of Solyndra.

WALLACE: Well, Romney wasn't the CEO of these companies, either. The president was --

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, Romney --

WALLACE: Excuse me. The president was a venture capitalist. He put taxpayer money into Solyndra and a thousand people lost their jobs.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: OK.

WALLACE: So is the president responsible for the thousand people who lost their jobs at Solyndra?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Not even close. But Mitt Romney is responsible for being CEO of companies that he took over. That --

WALLACE: No, he wasn't the CEO.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: He was the CEO of Bain. Bain bought these companies, took them over --

WALLACE: Well, the president is the CEO of the country.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: But he's not the CEO of Solyndra.

WALLACE: And Mitt Romney wasn't the CEO of AMPAD or these other companies.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: But Bain Capital owned those companies. He made the decision --

WALLACE: So, you are saying the president had no responsible for what happened in Solyndra? WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: What I'm saying is that Mitt Romney, as the CEO --

WALLACE: I'm asking you about the president.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No. Mitt -- no, the president --

WALLACE: Has no responsibility for Solyndra?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The president has responsibility for the green jobs programs where he made investments.

WALLACE: And how about the company Solyndra that went bankrupt?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: But the decisions that were made at Solyndra that ultimately led to their bankruptcy were those of the people who worked at Solyndra. Mitt Romney -- Chris, let me answer you a question, please.

WALLACE: Well, I think you did answer the question.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Mitt Romney, it's total apples and oranges comparison.

WALLACE: But you made the point. You think that one is he is the CEO of Bain and the other one you say yes.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaking in New Hampshire this morning, reminded her audience of the tragic Tucson shooting last year — and also insinuated that the Tea Party, which she said regards political opponents as “the enemy,” has enhanced divisiveness in Congress and had something to do with the shooting, at least indirectly.

“We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords — who is doing really well, by the way, — [was shot],” Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a “Politics and Eggs” forum this morning. “The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.”

Having brought up the Giffords attack as a political cudgel, Wasserman Schultz doubled down on that attack. “You had town hall meetings that they tried to take over, and you saw some their conduct at those tea party meetings,” Wasserman Schultz said today. “When they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you’re the enemy.”

If the leftist rabble had this attitude shift as a goal, then perhaps they were successful.

The Occupy Wall Street movement no longer occupies Wall Street, but the issue of class conflict has captured a growing share of the national consciousness. A new Pew Research Center survey of 2,048 adults finds that about two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor—an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.

Not only have perceptions of class conflict grown more prevalent; so, too, has the belief that these disputes are intense. According to the new survey, three-in-ten Americans (30%) say there are “very strong conflicts” between poor people and rich people. That is double the proportion that offered a similar view in July 2009 and the largest share expressing this opinion since the question was first asked in 1987.

Romney doesn't party

rickyp wrote:Doesn't really help for those who ask, "Which guy would I most want to have a beer with?"

Identification with the candidate has somehow been important in recent elections. And for the majority of Americans who, based upon the television commercials I see, like to party, drink beer and take erection creating drugs.... Romney doesn't seem all that indentifiable.
Barack might seem a little cold at times, but compared to Mitt.....

The current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country. America needs to reduce the power of major banks and corporations and demand greater accountability and transparency. The government should not provide financial aid to corporations and should not provide tax breaks to the rich

The judge was responding to a [federal] monitor's report submitted earlier this month that included "serious concerns" about the department's handling of the so-called Occupy Oakland protests. The monitor told the judge that officers' actions during the Occupy protests put even the small improvements made by the department in jeopardy.

"We were, in some instances, satisfied with the performance of the department; yet in others, we were thoroughly dismayed by what we observed," Warshaw wrote. "I cannot overstate our concern that although progress on compliance has been slow, even those advancements may have been put in doubt in the face of these events."

The monitor said the department's response to the Occupy protests will help determine whether the police are making progress.

The mayor and police chief announced in December they were hiring an independent investigator to evaluate claims police used excessive force and improper tactics responding to the protests, which included several uses of tear gas, rubber bullets and "flash-bang" grenades on protesters.

One protester [Iraq veteran Scott Olsen] was hospitalized after being hit in the head with a flash grenade. At least one officer was demoted from lieutenant to sergeant for failing to report a subordinate blacking out his name tag.

Warshaw promised the judge a more in-depth analysis of the Occupy protests when he submits his next report sometime in July. Henderson said the results of that report may prompt him to take the extremely rare step of placing the department in a federal receivership, stripping Oakland of control of its police.

rickyp wrote:dan

I have to say that I tend to be wary of the idea that if we (by which I mean we on the left, generally) just get a bunch of people together in one place with some signs and slogans and do 'stuff' we will somehow change things. The point is that sometimes that works, but it tends to be in the context of a lot more going on.

Don't you get the impression that in the US particularly, political leaders tend to follow. That is, that the public mood starts to move fairly significantly and political leaders then leap out, andf try to get ahead (surf) the movement?
In the way that the Tea Party started as a grass roots movement but has been co-opted by Dick Armey and others ...but it still paved the way for politicians to label themselves and participate in elections.In the way that opposition to Viet Nam started with "hippies" but grew to middle America (as the sacrifices of the war grew) . And then politicians adopted the cause...

In the same way, OWS seems to be encouraging leftisits and moderates to solidify around issues and policies that politicans have paid lip service towards but havn't addressed. Because the necessity for corporate money for politicking made some issues too difficult. Perhaps the leftist crowds will encourage stronger support for these positions. (I'm thinking of single payer health care, tax reform, financial industry regulation enhancements...)
Of all the politicans perhaps Elizabeth Warren best illustrates a OWS type? Populist from the left with a common sense no nonsense approach?