Romney Campaign In Des Moines Locks Doors On Occupy Protestors

[bigtree]

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

. . . has them arrested for knocking on window.



DES MOINES, Iowa -- Police have arrested a total of 10 Occupy protesters at the Des Moines campaign headquarters of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and a nearby Wells Fargo bank branch.
Seven protesters were arrested Wednesday at the Romney headquarters, where staffers locked the doors. Protesters banged on windows, demanding to be let in.

The protesters then moved to a Wells Fargo branch where three more were arrested.

The protests were the first actions of the "Occupy Iowa Caucus" campaign this week.

read: http://www.kcci.com/r/30090997/detail.html


The Occupy protesters want Romney and Wells Fargo to release their tax returns.

They also want Romney to return all campaign contributions from Wells Fargo.

However, the multi-millionaire Mitt says he's not planning on releasing his personal money information.

read: http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=578367


REUTERS/Joshua Lott


REUTERS/Joshua Lott


REUTERS/Joshua Lott

photos: 34 pictures of today’s Occupy protests in Des Moines: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=D2&Dato=20111228&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=112280801&Ref=PH

[Curmudgeoness]

1. Raise your hand if this surprises you.

The good part of this is, as long as they left the doors locked, no one was getting in---supporters included.

[rustydog]

2. One could get their message across better if they did not break the law.

Trespassing, creating a disturbance...I totally get the occupy movement.

Use common sense. You do not have the "right" to create a disturbance and try to force yourselves into a locked building.

[bigtree]

3. they have a right

to engage in civil disobedience. It looks like they're perfectly willing to accept the consequences of their actions. I seriously doubt they were 'disturbing' anyone except the Romneyites. I support any such protest in Iowa which doesn't actually interfere with the caucuses.

[karynnj]

4. They could legitimately be called on the issue of voter suppresion

What they did here was to interfere with the Romney campaign's legitimate operations. They are threatening to try to make a point at the Iowa caucus.

Now, I know some might say that freedom of speech allows them to speak anywhere and any time.

To get a picture of how this looks to them, imagine that instead of Occupy Iowa, this was an aggressive anti abortion group and they did this to either Obama's or Clinton's headquarters or imagine 2004 when it was more an issue and they were outside Dean's, Gephardt's or Kerry's office. Imagine they were threatening to show at caucuses. Just like Occupy, they would not be FOR any of the candidates and fundamentally against all of them.

Now ask what if the potential presence of these activists would cause some portion of people who would otherwise go to the caucuses to stay home rather than run the risk of being harassed. This is interfering with the process and is wrong. Going back to the fictitious analogy, assuming that Obama still won, what would that do the legitimacy of his victory? Is it possible that Hillary Clinton supporters might have argued that without the action, she would have won. I think we could all write the posts that would have said that.

There are few things that need to be protected as much as the right to an honest, free election. We all know that various undemocratic actions likely changed the results of two Presidential elections. We also know that the Republicans in many states are working hard to disenfranchise voters. Occupy's worst actions do not rise to this level, but if they interfere with the process for either party, they are wrong.

They DO have the right to have their own campaign and to lobby people in both parties to caucus for picking no one (which they initially said was their goal - mostly in the Democratic primary.)

[bigtree]

5. I don't think they intend to protest at the caucuses

This action at campaign headquarters isn't a new tactic. Occupy protestors have camped out at Iowa Obama offices, as well.


report: http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/29/des-moines-occupy-protest-results-in-10-arrests/

Organizers of Occupy Iowa, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement, called the arrests a crucial tactic to draw attention to economic issues that include corporate greed and income inequality.

Hours before the protests began, David Good-ner of Occupy Des Moines urged people to “go big” and risk arrest to build on momentum generated the night before when about 250 protesters showed up at an organizing event.

“That will make a powerful, powerful statement,” he said.

[karynnj]

10. There were reports that they do intend to make appearances outside

the caucuses.

David Goodner obviously has his position that this will help get the message out - and he is obviously a leader in this. I realize that I would never have thought that the original idea of Occupy Wall Street would bring the inequality issue out in to the open - which it very very clearly did. So, they were right and I was wrong.

At this point, I think that Obama and Democrats, who have long spoken about the inequality as a problem, should pick up the issue which now has more strength than it did before. I have seen that many leaders of Occupy Wall Street think both parties are guilty and responsible for where we are today. I think this misses that there are real differences in where the parties are on this issue. In addition, they see occupying X as an ongoing movement that they want to grow, to be an independent force.

I wonder if, just as both legislative work and public protest to change where the country stood, were needed to create real change in on civil rights - so the Occupy movement was needed to wake up enough Americans to see how unfair the growing inequality is in a way that reasoned articles (there were many in the NYT alone over the years), Senate speeches (Kerry gave a great one in 1993 speaking of the top 30% (the America of the yuppies of LA Law) making big gains, while the bottom 70% (the America of Roseanne) were in a "treadmill world", losing as they worked longer and harder.), scholarly reports, political speeches (virtually all Democrats - and Edwards' main theme) failed to do.

I understand the movements rejection of aligning with the Democratic party, that many see as having failed them and their desire to remain an independent force. Still, to succeed, they will at some point need to have impact politically. The country's current economic crisis will determine what kind of country we become. The Republicans are all lock step with Norquist - including even their so-called moderates. The question is whether Occupy will be able to see shades of gray and, without giving up their integrity, argue that defeating Republicans, who want to INCREASE the inequality (by making the Bush tax cuts permanent, getting rid of taxes on estates and capital gains), is what needs to be done in 2012. This is really not the time for a Pox on both of your houses attitude.

[mmonk]

8. Stretching a bit.

[comipinko]

7. That is the point!! It's called "civil DISobedience"

Do you think they should just stick to writing letters and such shit? sheeeeesh!

[mmonk]

6. Poor widdle Romney. Guess he felt persecuted.

[B Calm]

9. Romney's so called business experience

locked the doors on a lot of hard working people in this country. So I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise that they would lock the doors on occupy protestors.