Democratic establishment abandoned Occupy Wall Street

[blindpig]

Ehrenreich: Democratic establishment abandoned Occupy Wall Street

Author Barbara Ehrenreich accused Barack Obama and the Democratic establishment of betraying the Occupy movement on Tuesday by failing to stop the evictions from Zuccotti Park.

Ehrenreich, who has championed the struggles of working class Americans in books such as Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America said her outrage at the police crackdowns was magnified by the acquiesence of Democratic leaders.

"One of the appalling things here is that there are so many Democratic mayors involved in these crackdowns or in Bloomberg's case, someone who is seen as a liberal," Ehrenreich said in a telephone interview. "And where in all this was Obama? Why couldn't he have picked up the phone at some point a couple of weeks ago and called the mayors of Portland and Oakland and said: 'go easy on these people. They represent the anger and aspirations of the majority'. Would that have been so difficult?"

She said Obama had been practically silent since the protesters first descended on New York two months ago. "There have been a few little muffled comments but he has practically disappeared."

more.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/15/barbara-ehrenreich-occupy-wall-street

[tblue]

1. Is she surprised?

I'm not. I would be shocked if they did anything. The Administration has no problem weighing in on the outbreak of protests in other countries.

[TBF]

6. This administration is only interested in "weighing in" when oil is involved -

can you imagine how long it would last if a group tried to "occupy" the oil wells springing up in ND?

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. I, for one, will be remembering this --

:mad:

[catgirl]

3. BS

[Tesha]

18. A truly stunning rebuttal, overwhelming in its subtlety and complexity! (NT)

[tblue]

24. Well, it sure convinced me!

[catgirl]

32. Just reading the title is enough to call BS, okay?

I don't need to elaborate on this, Tesha.

[Ken Burch]

37. So you admit that the Dem establishment NEVER took our side against Wall Street?

That IS what you meant, right?

You can't still be pretending that Obama ever cared about the people. The last two years proved that he was always for the suites against the streets.

[Tesha]

40. Unfortunately for you, your post also violates the rules here. (NT)

[kenfrequed]

52. Right....

Just reading the title is enough, why bother reading the content of the article.

[catgirl]

55. I did

and Bloomberg is a liberal. It's a bunch of BS.

[kenfrequed]

56. What???!!

Bloomberg is a republican switch that knew the republican days were over around 2007 after switching to republican for the majority of the Bush Administration. You really call that a Liberal?

Economically he has declared himself repeatedly a fiscal conservative and he is a free trade fanatic?

Wait?? Isn't that what OWS is actually protesting.

So No, in their eyes he is not really all that liberal.

I recommend more research.

Good luck.

[catgirl]

57. The author of this article said it

Not me. Obviously he is NOT a liberal, but the author said it. Read the OP and article before you attack next time. So, to put
so much faith in such an ignorant person who makes these kinds of claims is kind of naive.

So please go and read the article that this whole OP is based on. Research, hmf.

[kenfrequed]

58. To clarify

So first the article was BS because of the title.

I called you on your saying you didn't have to read it.

You claimed to read it and said that: "I did - and Bloomberg is a liberal. It's a bunch of BS."

I pointed out he was not a liberal and why.

You that claimed it was the author that claimed he was a liberal. Below is the quote.

"One of the appalling things here is that there are so many Democratic mayors involved in these crackdowns or in Bloomberg's case, someone who is seen as a liberal," Ehrenreich said in a telephone interview.

The words 'someone who is seen as' does not mean that Barbara Ehrenreich sees bloomberg as a liberal and in fact if you asked her she would probably agree that he is economically conservative.

Now your tone and intent was nigh impossible to read. Did you think Ehrenreich's implication (which was really easy to read, and easier to understand if you knew her politics) that Bloomberg really wasn't a liberal was somehow BS? That is how I read your statement. I think it would help if you actually elaborated on your arguments occasionally and avoided speaking in fragments.

[catgirl]

59. Wow. Talk about missing the point.

I DID read the article. And the author's obvious cluelessness was revealed when she claimed that Bloomberg is ("is seen as"- by WHO?) a liberal. I never SAID you don't have to read
the article. You totally miss nuances, sarcasm as well as plain words. For you to "point out" to ME that Bloomberg is not a liberal is laughable when everybody except for the author
knows he is most definitely NOTY a liberal, or even seen as one. Well, maybe the NRA does. LOL.

[kenfrequed]

60. So... Barbara Ehrenreich is clueless?

I have to say I have never heard an actual progressive say that.

I think you need to reread what I wrote, and reread what you wrote. I don't think you are communicating well and you don't seem terribly well read. Your earlier posts are vauge and cryptic and, once more, feel a lot more like fragments at times than complete sentences.

Bloomberg does have a record of having some viewpoints that are socially liberal. You cannot get to be in his position by being a staunch conservative. That said Bloomberg is economically conservative. So, from a certain point of view Someone could say that 'some see Bloomberg as liberal.' The author does not, and you had ever read any book she had ever written you would probably know this.

I don't know where you are in the democratic/progressive spectrum. Maybe you are a bit of an establishment democrat that doesn't like challenges to any democrat anywhere. I have no idea as I know nothing about you. I do know that Ehrenreich has earned her progressive cred. She is someone I would trust. I cannot say the same for you or your opinion.

[catgirl]

61. "you don't seem terribly well read"

"Maybe you are a bit of an establishment democrat...". LOL. You felt the need to school me on things I already know. Again, you miss nuances and obvious sarcasm.
My comments weren't cryptic at all. You just don't get it. Some people only understand things that are black or white- literal. Since you seem to be claiming that you
are well-read, you should be able to understand things beyond black and white. I gave my opinion on the OP. This is a discussion forum, after all. Then suddenly I'm
not a "progressive". Just because I disagree with the rantings of a so called progressive, doesn't make me an "establishment democrat". What a bunch of baloney.

No need to give me any more of your opinions or insults. You've wasted enough of my time.

[villager]

4. Just as they abandoned us.

n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Yep, but you know what? We're going to get the country back...

And away from them, if we have to.

[freshwest]

33. I hope you're right. Personally, I'm bummed out by this whole thing, but...

I don't see Obama as the chief boogieman here. We have a lot of the 99%ers who don't see any need for economic justice for now.

[Ken Burch]

38. And If I have to die(though I won't kill)in the name of that, I'm ready now.

We can't go on living on our knees anymore.

[RKP5637]

7. ... waiting to see which way the wind is blowing. Conspicuously absent IMO. n/t

[Fumesucker]

8. "Abandoned"?

That assumes the Democrats ever cared about OWS at all, an assumption unsupported by evidence.

[redqueen]

51. My thoughts exactly. (nt)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vincardog]

19. + a lot

[Starry Messenger]

10. In Oakland, the city stated that their Occupy raid was Federally funded.

Abandoned is probably not the word I would use. They declared war.

[blindpig]

12. Gotta make allowances....

breaking up is hard to do for some folks.

We ain't seen nothing yet.

[truebrit71]

11. IMHO that is a good thing..the last thing the OWS needs is to have the albatross of Dem support...

..around their neck...the reich-wing corporate media in this country have been busy trying all sorts of other devious methods to make this look like it is backed by Obama/Pelosi/Commies...

Besides which, a large number of the D.C. Dems ARE the 1% so who is kidding whom exactly?

[Lionessa]

29. Excellent point, however, I am extra frustrated that the beltway DLCers and Obama

seem to have decided to actually use DHS to go after OWS. Department of Homeland Security, ... still feels like Nazi rhetoric to me. I'll never quit hating the word "homeland."

[Amonester]

45. "Going after" doesn't automatically mean "winning over" you know?

The scared establishment can try the "going after" tactic all they want, but they will still lose.

The OWS movement will only grow larger each time they'll "go after" it.

[freshwest]

34. Thanks. Good point there. I'd hate to see this co-opted by any political party.

[FarLeftFist]

13. In what world is Bloomberg seen as Liberal?! That's the problem with America, Bloomberg is seen as

Liberal. Jeez!

[cui bono]

20. So true. I remember a post on here a while back that said progressives

wanted Bloomberg to run for president!

:wtf:

[tsuki]

14. Kaiser Mike of the 1% is anything but liberal. nt

[Bryn]

15. I saw what Democratic Establishment did here in Arkansas

We had an excellent democratic candidate Bill Halter running for US senate. They shut down 40 voting polls in Hot Springs, Bill Halter's stronghold and where he was popular. Backed Blanche Lincoln. Helped her beat Halter, but she still lost to John Boozman, Republican. I was told that "they would rather have Boozman, a Republican, than a progressive Bill Halter if they couldn't have Blanche Lincoln." Commerce of Chamber backed Blanche then abandoned her as soon as she beat Halter, backed Boozman. I haven't forgotten this.

[JoeyT]

16. Yeah, but remember,

the solution is to back progressive candidates!

Of course the behavior of the party in that election proves what a lie that solution is, but it's not like people that beat that drum are worried about facts anyway.

[bvar22]

27. Obama himself endorsed & campaigned FOR the virulently Anti-LABOR Blanche Lincoln,

...who had crowed during the Democratic Primary that she had helped derail the Public Option,
and had obstructed most of the White House initiatives,
AND THE WHITE HOUSE gives her FULL SUPPORT during the Democratic Primary!!!???

The White House even sent the Old Dog (Bill Clinton) back to Arkansas to rescue Lincoln's failing Primary Campaign against a Pro-Health Care/Pro-LABOR challenger.

Adding insult to injury, a White House Spokesman ridiculed LABOR for "wasting 10 Million Dollars" supporting a Pro-LABOR candidate. WTF???

Burned into my soul!
I'm Fired Up and Ready to GO!!!.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MindandSoul]

17. So, you're beating up on Obama for not saying ENOUGH to support

OWS, but you're saying nothing about the vitriol from Boehner and the Right?

May I remind you that OWS didn't want to be "sponsored" or taking advantage of by ANY politicien or political party. . .


Should Obama have IMPOSED himself on OWS?

You can't have it both way!

[Vincardog]

22. Obama could have made a strong clear statement that the OWS movement is LEGAL and the right of every

American Citizen. But his "backers" would not have approved.

[cui bono]

23. Obama wanted his feet held to the fire. Well now that it's happening he just ignores it.

He doesn't need to IMPOSE himself on OWS. What he can do admit we are right and fire Geithner etc... How about he starts actually doing the people's work instead of the bankster's and insurance companies' work? He could invite a few of the organizers in for a meeting like he has done with health insurance heads and others. He could state that he was elected to represent the people and this is what they want.

But he won't. Because he doesn't give a shit what the people want or need. He's shown that from day one. Or whatever day he started officially appointing people.

Defending him is only hurting our country. It's time to stop that shit. He's in bed with corporations and Wall Street and it needs to stop.

[The Straight Story]

25. We expect it from the right, and we expect hope and change president

to support the people. No need to endorse them, just a small 1 minute statement.

Closer to election time I look for words of support as he will need their votes.

[bvar22]

28. Bogus Strawman.

President Obama doesn't have to "IMPOSE himself on OWS".

All he has to do is welcome DEMOCRACY and support The Peoples Rights to peaceably assemble
and voice their grievances.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sabrina 1]

35. No need for him to support or not support OWS. The issue

is their right to free speech, without being nearly killed by the 'civilian police' as has happened over and over again now. All he has to do is remind those responsible that harming the American people is a crime.

Right now, Congress' approval rating is 9%, OWS 60%. There is virtually no political risk to any politician standing up against police brutality against Americans exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

[Ken Burch]

39. But he doesn't support free speech either....

And his advisors will be out there telling us he HAS to not support it, because "The Independents" couldn't tolerate a pro-democracy president.

[Ken Burch]

41. We expected him to defend the absolute right to nonviolent free speech

If you don't do that, you've joined the right. "Law and Order" is an anti-human sentiment.

[mmonk]

21. I posted this from her Facebook page today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2314282

[hulka38]

26. The facade continues to crumble. n/t

[WillyT]

30. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. The "establishment" is the corporate 2 party system. The politicians are just the middlemen.

[blindpig]

46. True enough....

but many here still accept the false dichotomy.

[Ken Burch]

36. Abandoned? They never SUPPORTED it.

It is now clear that the sole purpose of the Obama campaign was to divert the justified rage and passion of the growing anti-corporate, antiwar people's movement that was surging throughout this country in the 2006-2008 period into support of a charismatic sham-a candidate who was already committed, from the start, to leading a "Democratic" administration that would always fight for Wall Street against the people when it really, REALLY mattered.

That's why the "financial reform" bill Obama brags about is meaningless(and, no, the statement that "Wall Street hates the bill" is a comic lie-they pretended to fight against it even though nothing was left in it that makes any difference simply to keep the political pantomime going-secretly, they were probably breaking out the champagne with the Big O when the "reform" bill was signed. Why not? They won on that.)

We were had, folks. And yes, we'd have been equally had if HRC had been the nominee, because she would have been exactly the same. The nominating process was rigged to keep any Dem who would actually have challenged Wall Street, the medical-industrial complex, or the war machine from having any chance at all.

We all KNOW that now. No one can still pretend otherwise.

That's why millions are now rebelling.

[Laelth]

42. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[Huey P. Long]

63. Great reply, and a great OP. Thank you for posting.

[steelmania75]

43. Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter, both are part of the Corporate Party

[sarcasmo]

53. Bought, sold and paid for by corporations. Schumer was slamming lay away last week.

It comes out this week that Newt has made millions from Fannie and Freddie.

[SidDithers]

44. pffffffttttt...nt

Sid

[JoePhilly]

47. Bloomberg is a liberal?

[LWolf]

48. She's right. It's certainly not a surprise. nt

[woo me with science]

49. I am certain that we will increasingly be seeing evidence

that they are actively behind efforts to end it.

[blindpig]

50. Well, DHS is a department of this Democratic administration......

and DHS did coordinate the crackdown on OWS.....

[progressoid]

54. Um, Barbara, The Democratic establishment is partially responsible for there even being an OWS.

IMHO the Occupiers should be camping outside the White House and Congress too.

[ashling]

62. She must be upset about their growing pains

because that is what it is

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/nov/18/crackdown-zuccotti-occupy-wall-street/

In the days since the eviction, the protesters have seemed by turns stunned, exhilarated, enraged, defeated, and newly determined to press on. An organizer insisted that the eviction was “a major victory.” It has restored the protesters’s image as decriers of economic injustice, putting an end, for now, to damaging news stories about drug addicts and sexual offenders in their encampment. It has also relieved the movement of having to materially support the occupation, which had become a draining responsibility. Prior to the eviction, the nightly General Assemblies had been drawing fewer participants, often no more than thirty-five or forty, indicative of the growing sense of activist burn-out.

But Zuccotti Park had also been an effective stage, the movement’s symbolic nerve center, “the flagship occupation of an international franchise,” as one organizer wryly remarked. The lack of communication between autonomous groups within the movement had been a constant problem. Some organizers fear it will deteriorate further without their central forum. Others feel it opens the door to a new, more effective structure. The larger question the movement now faces is whether, without Zuccotti Park (and dozens of other occupation sites around the country that have been similarly raided) it will be able to hold the focus of its supporters. The movement has been re-energized. It has turned a corner. But to where?