General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWithout Occupy Wall Street, you would have seen the exact same State of the Union speech.
And that's really easy to prove, since you can go back and look at the past three, and notice that Obama has been hitting the same themes all along. Hell, go back further, and read his 2002 speech going against the Iraq War, and you'll find many themes in common: peace dividends, clean energy, real national security strategies, and fixing the economy.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression.... You want a fight, President Bush? Lets finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Lets fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons in already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Lets fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Lets fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obamas_2002_speech.html
Frankly, it annoys the crap out of me for people to try and take credit for something that they had nothing to do with, and was already going on. To give credit for the State of the Union to "Occupy Wall Street" requires that you ignore all the history of Obama's rhetoric and positions, all the history of his experience as a campaigner and community organizer, and start the clock a few months ago in order to magnify out of all proportion the effect of a short-lived and ultimately ineffectual protest movement. Sorry, but Barack Obama was there long before "Occupy Wall Street," and he's still here afterward, because he looks at the long game. I for one am grateful for that, because it means he won't give up and go home when the entire capitalist system fails to crumble in response to one act of disagreement.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)ETA: Eat your peas..
Occulus
(20,599 posts)Wraith is wrong, as usual.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002217957 47 recs and counting
The thread we're in now? 8 http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=221733
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)of those reccing this thread are not, shall we say, surprising.
Inuca
(8,945 posts)The conversation started changing after the debt limit debacle, namely in early September. Remember a controversial address to Congress, job proposals, taking it on the road, etc.? And that was BEFORE OWS.
OTOH I agree, OWS made a big difference in keeping the focus (not only the administration's, but much wider) where it should be.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Nothing as subtle and refined as a fencing sword fight.
msongs
(67,193 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The president gave a great speech. But it was a speech. He has given a number of great speeches. He has done almost nothing to reign in Wall Street.
Occupy is a reaction to the lack of substantial action by this President/Congress to correct the corruption in Washington the DC. Some say to work within the system. Right put your vote into the Diebolt machine to either elect corporatist A or corporatist B. Occupy says the system is corrupt.
Rebecca Solnit says: "Join us. Or dont join us. But please dont try to have it both ways." I say, that there are two sides in this war. The 1% and their gullible followers, and WeThePeople. Pick a side.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Yeah, that works out real well. Particularly when the remainder of OWS can't even find much in the way of coherence, let alone accurately representing the opinions and interests of three hundred million people. It's presumptuous and arrogant to say they do, particularly when you can barely anymore find anyone outside of the very liberal political realm who thinks much of them.
It's the same story as Code Pink back during the height of the Iraq War: a sacred elephant to some people, but if you get perspective from outside the bubble you realize that they're ineffectual and a joke. That's what OWS has become. But meanwhile, people continue to ridicule Obama and others who are doing actual work, like passing Wall Street reform bills, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, etcetera, and gripe that THAT is "just pretty words."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a Democratic party machine that refuses to fight the corruption they wallow in. Yes the president gives a good speech. Says he will close Guantanamo, apparently forgetting he needs Congress. Says he is going to do a lot of things. Didnt mention indefinite arrest and detention, his love for the Patriot Act and domestic spying. He is going to get tough with the banksters, yeah how? Have his Wall Street friends like Jeff Immelt have a talking to them.
You say it is arrogant to claim that OWS represents three million Americans. Who is claiming that? Can you spell strawman?
I say it is arrogant to ridicule those willing to take the brunt of the brutality of a government that is corrupt.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)I missed SOTU because it airs earlier out here on the Left Coast, and I was on my way back from a workers' rights rally in Sac. So yeah, I would have seen the exact same State of the Union speech.
Raine
(30,540 posts)gopiscrap
(23,674 posts)because I think he's corporate prick-but even he said the address you heard last nigt was partly a result of the OWS movement.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)...were undoubtedly changed by OWS.
It's one thing to say "We want clean energy." It's another thing entirely to actually propose a plan that uses clean energy. The last 3 years were doubling down on health care and saving us from a recession. Now, had those things not happened, it's possible, very possible, that the policy changes would've been pushed. But Obama does what he can get done, and he's pushing these policies in a substantiative way rather than base rhetoric.
Fact is, the United States is a right wing country, and Obama can now use OWS to champion ideas that OWS supports, ideas which are unabashedly progressive, unabashedly liberal.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)In 2002, when running in one of the most liberal political districts in the nation, he was a firebrand because that seemed like good politics.
In 2010 he was a center-right deficit hawk-lite because that seemed like good politics.
Today he is a mild fire-brand because his perception of what is good politics has changed.
And why has it changed?
OWS, and all that goes with it as a bottom-up development of a political environment
Rex
(65,616 posts)It is an election year etc.. you gotta toe that line.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)People love to create this imaginary world where Obama suddenly veered off to the right wing, and yet they can never seem to prove it. Particularly given that the ACTUAL right wing has been fighting him tooth and nail every step of the way. An objective view shows the policies have been consistent; it's how people perceive them that isn't.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)centrists, whatever the hell a centrist is. They are conservatives.
T S Justly
(884 posts)rudycantfail
(300 posts)run this shit by someone you trust before you post.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)gets credit for raising the issue of inequality in mainstream awareness.
President Obama gets credit for delivering an excellent speech that encasulates the the theme in rhetoric and policy. He's damn good at that. His speech was much more.
One thing is certain, it's hilarious to see some trying to have it both ways: crediting the OWS for the speech, but labeling it a disappointment.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)In the United States, the protests have helped shift the national dialogue from the deficit to economic problems many ordinary Americans face, such as unemployment,[242] the large amount of student and other personal debt that burdens middle class and working class Americans,[243] and other major issues of social inequality, such as homelessness.[244] The movement appears to have generated a national conversation about income inequality, as evidenced by the fact that print and broadcast news mentioned the term income inequality more than five times more often during the last week of October 2011 than during the week before the occupation began.[245] The Occupy movement raised awareness regarding undeserved wealth and lack of fairness in American society.[246]
On November 10, 2011, The Daily Telegraph reported that the word "occupy" had been the "most commonly used English word on the internet and in print" over the past 12 months according to a top ten list published by media analysis company Global Language Monitor.[248][249] In January 2012, members of the American Dialect Society voted with an overwhelming majority for "Occupy" as the word of the year for 2011.[250]
[edit] Political impact
On 27 December 2011 the Financial Times argued that the movement had had a global impact, altering "the terms of the political debate."[251] Other commentators have taken a more critical view, suggesting the occupy movement has been a disruptive waste of time. Even some sympathetic commentators such as Anthony Barnett, have suggested that in Spain, where the movement once had the support of well over 70% of the population with millions takeing part, the popularity of Occupy is now past its peak and has achieved no consequences of any significance. [34] However there were numerous successes at local level [252] and The Economist has reported that Spanish protestors caused their government to pass various laws including new limits on the amounts banks can claw back from defaulting borrowers. [89]
In November 2011, U.S. Congressman Ted Deutch, member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the "Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Constitutional Amendment," which would overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision recognizing corporate constitutionally-protected free speech rights and would ban corporate money from the electoral process.[253][254] Also in November, Paul Mason said that the occupy movement had started to shape the global policy response to the Late-2000s financial crisis, being mentioned so often at the 2011 G20 summit that if occupy had been a brand "it would have a profile to die for among the super-elite". [255]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement
bullwinkle428
(20,626 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Instead of fighting 'President Bush' you ought to be paying attention to what's actually happening with the Occupy movement and how it has changed the dialogue.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Keep it up pinboy3niner! (BTW saw your complete ownage of those trolls in the SEAL rescue thread, good job!)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)...(shades of the past, huh?) and both trolls are now pushing up cyberdaisies.
CTyankee
(63,769 posts)the 1% and the 99%. It is a fresh way of looking at what is essentially a very old problem. AND it is an antidote to the "divide and conquer" strategy of the RW which has heretofore been so successful. OWS isn't letting that happen. When they point out to the police confronting them that they, the police, are ALSO part of the 99% they are educating the public in a very understandable way.
OWS has crystalized this debate for us.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--of banking fraud without OWS? If Obama gave a rat's ass about the issue, why didn't he set up this investigation on 1/21/2009? The speech was good politics, and following through in an election year would be even better politics.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)sounds like someone doesn't want the unwashed masses sullying Obama's spotlight. I knew when people started bringing up OWS there would be "Obama alone" purists who'd get all bent out of shape about it. Thank God Obama has more sense than many of his ardent fans.
quaker bill
(8,223 posts)What OWS has done is shift the topic away from Tea Pary austerity, and provided rhetorical room for the President to respond to a public demand. This likely shifts the focus of the speech to a greater emphasis on inequity, and allows a naked "lets tax the rich at 30%" discussion. Without OWS, such a proposal would have needed to be bundled in all sorts and kinds of "reform". It probably still would have been included, but I would bet in a different form.
CTyankee
(63,769 posts)We were mired in the same old, same old political debate, getting nowhere. Now we've moved off the dime and found a new way of expressing a very old theme of simple justice and equality...