So Michael Moore went on TV and implied the White House is coordinating the OWS crackdowns

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

Isn't it a little irresponsible to make this kind of charge based on such flimsy evidence?

Keith and filmmaker and activist Michael Moore discuss the early-morning raid on New York’s Occupy Wall Street encampment in Zuccotti Park. Noting that the movement will be revitalized by the setback, Moore also stresses that the federal government has been involved with coordinating the strategy and tactics of the raids that took place across the country over the past 48 hours: “This is not some coincidence. This was planned and I think the question really has to be asked of the federal government and of the Obama administration. Why? Why? Why are you participating in this against a non-violent mass movement of people who are upset at what Wall Street and the banks have done to their lives?”

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/occupy-wall-street-michael-moore-connects-the-federal-government-to-encampment-raids

[CakeGrrl]

1. Not to those who want to believe it.

It feeds the "Obama bad" red meat crowd.

Otherwise, YES it's irresponsible. But isn't it fun to speculate?

:eyes:

[hlthe2b]

3. I don't want to believe it...

But, IF DHS is coordinating or assisting in coordinating these crackdowns, it would be hard to imagine Napolitano did not discuss with the President. And, if, to the contrary, DHS is coordinating or assisting in coordinating these crackdowns and President Obama is NOT aware or informed, that likewise brings me considerable concern. Possible, certainly, I suppose.

I conclude nothing. But, I am concerned. It is inexplicable to think all these stories re: 18 city conference call are totally untrue, while this many cities coincidentally adopted many of the same tactics to crack down over a 48 hour period.

To not even question, is to be blind, IMO. But, no, I certainly do NOT want to believe that Obama is giving the stamp of approval for these crack downs and frankly, it is more likely that he has indicated his personal intent not to become involved in local LE issues, knowing that that does not preempt routine FBI and DHS involvement.

There is a pragmatism that takes place in all WH administrations, I do realize. Which is why we STILL have GITMO, as per one unfortunate example. This may be another.

[karynnj]

16. I think an 18 city conference call entirely reasonable, if it happened

All these cities are dealing with essentially the same thing and it is significantly different than anything they had in the past. It makes sense that they are speaking to each other to assess how well the different ways each responded worked. I would imagine that they could - in such a private forum - be more honest than in the press on their own evaluation of the effectiveness of any thing they did.

IF the DHS suggested this and maybe helped with the logistics, I really do not see this as wrong. Would you have a problem if leaders (and there likely really are some) of the protesters in the 18 cities had a conference call on what actions backfired and which worked, would you have a problem? I wouldn't - it actually sounds like a good idea. Yet it is the counterpart of the cities interacting.

[elleng]

29. I agree, conference call among cities/mayors re: similar concerns reasonable;

DHS involvement, not so much.

[sabrina 1]

49. And now there is a 40 city coordination between Police Depts.

But no one at the government level knew anything about it, especially since they are all involved with the FBI since 9/11 and the Patriot Act.

To say he knew nothing about this is actually worse than if he did, WE knew, and if a president is that disengaged from their own people, maybe they should not be president.

He knows now, let's see what he does about it. His citizens are being brutally beaten and nearly killed for exercising their 1st Amendment rights, they need protection from these military-style tactics being used against them.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[leveymg]

2. There's no question that they are being coordinated - LA and SD mayors both say so - but, by whom?

That question remains unanswered about who has been organizing the municipal and state responses. The most likely suspect is obviously DHS.

[polmaven]

9. Well, there are a few new inventions

lately, called the "telephone" and "e-mail" and "private messaging".....Could it be they are talking with ...um...each other???

[karynnj]

17. The cities could even have a joint private facebook group

I think it is completely normal and intelligent if they are speaking to each other and learning from each other's experiences.

[TheWraith]

40. Hell, it would be stupid for them not to be regularly communicating, even without OWS.

There's a lot of things that go on on the city level that they could deal with and teach each other. I'd be kind of surprised if there wasn't several strata of group discussion venues for medium to large city officials.

[leveymg]

45. This isn't normal US Conf. of Mayors stuff - they don't have repeated conference calls to discuss

zoning issues and teacher's salaries. There's something extraordinary going on in coordination of police activities, and by the very nature of it, this is not entirely self-organizing, and is instead something that DHS would necessarily coordinate (although they would probably use the term "cooperate" with).

[SidDithers]

74. It was coordinated by the US Council of Mayors...

In a recent interview with the BBC, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan let slip that a group of 18 mayors had recently discussed the Occupy protests' impact in their respective cities during a conference call hosted by the US Conference of Mayors.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/occupy-protest-coordinate-crackdown-wall-street

So, no, that question doesn't remain unanswered.

Sid

[boppers]

81. Well, by claiming it's "unanswered" there's more drama.

Drama sells.

[Tx4obama]

84. Yep. The mayors have conference calls on a regular basis

See comment #67 on the link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2314401&mesg_id=2327193

[krawhitham]

4. Michael Moore is the cover boy for irresponsible

[Umbral]

20. Yeah! And he's fat too. nt

[emilyg]

25. And rich.

[BklnDem75]

26. The top 1% rich

[cantbeserious]

6. Perfectly Plausible - Remember Obama's Administration Would Not Prosecute War Criminals

Do we really believe it has the balls to prosecute financial criminals?

[Scuba]

7. I don't want to believe it either, but sadly, won't be surprised if it is true....

on edit, link to OP regarding DHS and FBI being involved... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2315960

[Tesha]

8. If it turns out that DHS or the FBI are involved (as seems quite likely now), then...

...*BY DEFINITION* the Obama Administration is
involved since these are both departments in the
Executive Branch.

And as a much-better Democratic President once
observed regarding his office: "The buck stops here."

Tesha

[RFKHumphreyObama]

32. And that great Democratic President who coined that phase

Had the same plethora of moaning and whining purity ideologues undermining him at every turn from within his own party throughout his presidency even as he did great things because he supposedly wasn't liberal enough -showing that the modern day treebaggers have learnt nothing sixty years on. Yet now history records him as a great President despite their short-sighted monaing, just as it will this President despite the best efforts of the professional left

[Jakes Progress]

36. Help me here.

The topic of the thread is federal support for attacking OWS. We get your take on leftists and how bad they are. But can you comment on the topic of the thread? Do you support the idea of administration helping to undermine the Occupy movement? If Obama backed bloomberg in this, do you support his actions there?

See. That would be contributing to the thread. You can always start your own thread attacking the left.

[OnyxCollie]

83. That same great Democratic President

issued Executive Order 9066, resulting in the internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans.

The Japanese and Japanese-American migrant workers who had first "colonized" in the 1860's had been legislatively "channeled" for decades; unable to own property, and later, to rent it; female migrant workers were prohibited from entering the country (controlling population).

Farm corporations wanted the Japanese farmers gone. They had become too skilled, too costly, and controlled too many farms.

When FDR issued EO 9066, the farm corporations loved it. They lobbied the gov't to subsidize dummy corporations so the crops could be harvested without any risk on their part. Since the farm corporations owned the farms (allowing the Japanese to "manage" farms, instead of rent or own, at high cost), the dummy corporations would harvest the crops and sell to the farm corporations at low prices. It worked out great for them.

But hey, that was back in the 40's, and it was just a bunch of Japs. Who cares if they had everything taken from them, regardless of their civil rights? Things are different now.

Anyone who says a Democratic President today would sell out Americans to corporate interests is just a whiney, moaning, Professional Leftist.

[OnyxCollie]

88. Oops, I fucked up.

Truman, not FDR.:blush:

Anyway, the point I was trying to make still stands: Don't trust any President, even the great Democratic ones, not to sell out Americans for corporate interests.

[vi5]

10. Hasn't there been other evidence?

I've seen a few different articles now on this subject, quoting a few different people, all predicting pretty well what was about to happen. And it has all seemed very coordinated from the get go once these things spread.

Is anyone really naive enough to believe that it COULDN'T be true?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

13. How do you know what evidence he has?

NGU.

[Kahuna]

14. Moore is a great documentary film maker. Other than that he is a

jackass.

[monmouth]

48. Well said...n/t

[karynnj]

15. Michael Moore has always been both good and bad

The parts of his documentaries that stick to what is unimpeachably true are clear and powerful, but he seems - in most cases - to want to add things where he "connects the dots". One observation, straight lines ALWAYS connect dots on a graph, but in Moore's case he often uses proof by intimidation - just stating that the link is true - rather than providing sound backup.

Because of this, he is often a political net loss because the iffy stuff allows people to refuse to confront the genuinely solid stuff.

With Occupying Wall Street, it is an insult to NYC to say that they would consider allowing the federal government to take the lead on what is completely something that the city has jurisdiction over.

My own opinion, which will not be popular, is that OWS laid the seeds for ending up seen as losing when they did not - at the beginning set a date for leaving. There were many successful movements that were for a limited time with a goal of waking up America. Consider the Vietnam moratorium, the Vets on the mall in 1971, and MLK's huge rally. The fact is that OWS has changed the conversation in a good way. They have gotten credit for that.

I think they would have done just as well in changing the attitude towards income inequality if they would have at the beginning spoke of being there for - say - a month. Then maybe transitioned to teach ins and maybe worked to give these ideas political clout. One basic piece is growing income inequality. Maybe working to sell the country on the idea that it is wrong for any legislation to have the expected result of increasing inequality. They could demand that legislators ask CBO for estimates of this on all bills - or get a new or existing think tank to do so.

I went to take back America in 2007, and there was a panel with a MLK biographer, Roger Wilkins and Jesse Jackson. I am writing this from memory so I may be wrong, but one clear point made was that BOTH the energy of the protests and the marches AND the quieter legislative work, done by people like Roger Wilkins, who worked in the LBJ administration, were needed to actually change the laws and the country.

The fact is that under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and another Bush, the rich have increased their share of the country's wealth. If nothing changes, Obama can be added to that list just through the continuation of bad policies. I think the idea of labeling a bill as increasing income inequality, neutral, or decreasing income equality could be a concept that could be easily understood and it is something where we have the popular end - who really wants to say they are for more inequality. (They will say - socialism - but it is easy to say that this is not speaking of equality, but just saying that 1% having 40% of the wealth is really more than enough.)

[DebJ]

18. Just a guess, but I'm thinking that it would not be at all

unusual that if local police want help with any issue, that they are able to call upon various national security agencies for guidance and assistance, and that those agencies are REQUIRED to assist when asked to do so.

In other words, not a top-down directive from the federal level to cities, but rather, a request-up process from
the cities to the feds, and the feds are OBLIGATED to help.

In other words, nothing to do with Obama. Just SOP and maybe by law or regulation, the agencies must comply.

[Kahuna]

23. If bloomberg cited a terrorist threat possibility, DHS would be obligated

to assist. Other than that, I can see no good reason why the FEDs would want to initiate the removal.

[NorthCarolina]

19. Perhaps you just need to wake up and take a critical look around.

I suspect Moore is absolutely correct.

[Carolina]

62. Thank you my northern friend

:hi: I suspect Moore is correct as well.

BHO can't be bothered to go after real criminals: Bushes, Banks...
But when it comes to marijuana and peaceful protesters, it's a different story.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. MM's "irresponsibility" is what makes him so attractive to anarchist types.

The moment Obama became president, he became establishment, and thus the enemy. Michael did the same thing to Gore who, ironically, is now a liberal icon. Go figure. Michael is a businessman, and he knows he'll never go broke fighting "the establishment". I have a theory that this is the reason Bernie Sanders will never run, cause it's much easier to talk shit from the sidelines than actually get something done.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. Did you notice that Bernie Sanders already kinda sorta has a job?

It's a fairly important job at that. There are only 99 other people in this nation of 300,000,000 that hold his position. With that in mind, please tell me what on earth you're babbling about "talking shit from the sidelines"?

[Telly Savalas]

103. The pot shot at Sanders is both uncalled for and irrational

One of the biggest constraints the President faces is dealing with a Congress populated with flaky right wing extremists. How will this be rectified if one of the few reasonable members of the Senate decides to put his job on hold to waste time with a vanity presidential campaign?

Sen. Sanders can sometimes be critical of the President, but such criticism is never rooted in the cherry-picking of facts, reliance on Huff Post style "unnamed sources", or character attacks. If all such thoughtful, honest criticism of the President from the Left were to come to a halt, that would make Obama the most left wing public figure in the country, completely undercutting his strategy of positioning himself as a consensus-building compromiser.

Advancing positive social and economic change is a team effort, and Sanders is filling a role on that team. He leverages his position into being a voice for sane policymaking, and is always a reliable vote when a good bill makes it to the Senate floor -- pretty pragmatic if you ask me.

If you think he's being ineffective, would you care to point out what specific actions he can be taking that he isn't doing now?

[Fuddnik]

24. Amy Goodman said the same thing.

And quoted the Oakland mayor.

As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty obvious. DHS is not your friend, and the PTB are getting spooked.

[catgirl]

27. Michael Moore has gone down a few pegs in my eyes

Sometimes he's just so full of shit.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[catgirl]

67. I had the greatest respect for him, mind you

and I have friends who have edited some of his projects. Your uncontrolled anger and undeserved insults towards me show much
about your maturity level.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

101. what evidence do you have to support the claim you're making?

[southernyankeebelle]

28. It is kind of interesting that at all these OWS in different cities they shut

them down. I said to my husband going out in the morning that I felt they coordinated all these police in the different cities. Then when I got home later in the day I read the Mayor of Oakland said she was on a conference call with other mayors. This is 1984 people. We are no longer free.

[NorthCarolina]

30. It turns out that Moore was right afterall...

http://wonkette.com/456282/surprise-homeland-security-coordinates-ows-crackdowns-nationwide

All you Michael Moore haters can wipe the egg off your face now.

[zalinda]

31. In a couple of the pics or videos

DHS jackets were seen. When MM said there was a coordinated effort, I had already seen the proof.

zalinda

[BklnDem75]

41. A 'source' from a satire and political gossip site?

This is hard hitting stuff!

[caraher]

44. True, but they aren't the original source

They link to an http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies">Examiner piece.

I'd like more and better sources, but it is fairly plausible and I don't blame people for having somewhat different evidence thresholds for belief. And for what it's worth, I first heard of this claim through a libertarian acquaintance who has no sympathy for the protest but worries about abuse of government powers.

[BklnDem75]

47. It's uncorroborated

An unnamed source is hardly a smoking gun.

[caraher]

53. I agree there's plenty of room for doubt

I'd also say an unnamed source is more than just pulling something out of one's nether regions. But sure, not a smoking gun, and if that's the level of evidence you need it falls far short.

But given the outright lies we hear daily in the regular media, I'm in no huge rush to hold a guy whose whole career is built on tweaking the establishment to a higher standard than "respectable" sources. Nobody should treat Moore as a primary information source, and I think everybody knows that and takes his words with suitable doses of salt. (And I don't think he'd disagree with that attitude towards him...)

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. I'm sorry, but ...

This is a completely stupid argument. The presense of DHS, the FBI and any other law enforcement is completely "situation-normal" is events like this ... law enforcement supports law enforcement ... period.

But the crazy part of this argument is some are calling "presense" as "coordinating"; that is highly unlikely.

But to resolve all argument ...

IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!" {S/O}

[BklnDem75]

73. Sorry, but 'law enforcement supports law enforcement'...

just isn't a strong argument to stand on. A claim was made. Actual facts are needed this time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. No ... I completely agree.

But no actual facts will be forthcoming ... Just un-named sources.

[harun]

56. Won't be getting many apologies, although they are due.

Of course.

[NorthCarolina]

58. No, he'll continue to be bashed for the crime of being a Liberal...at least in this DU forum. nt

[harun]

75. *sigh*, yep

[Number23]

63. Wonkette used the same crusty, unreputable source that was sprayed all over DU

and even goes so far to say:

"(And for those who are understandably doubtful about Examiner.com as a news source, here’s an AP story from a couple hours ago that verifies everything except the specific mention of DHS coordination.)"

An AP story the verifies EVERYTHING but the crux of the Examiner piece. Nope, nothing strange about that...:eyes:

[Enrique]

33. it was irresponsible for you to call Michael Moore irresponsible

your evidence was flimsy that his evidence was flimsy.

[BklnDem75]

42. What was the evidence provided by Moore?

[Enrique]

43. he cited a specific news report

he cited the Minneapolis Examiner story that has been posted here at DU.

Did you watch the intverview?

[BklnDem75]

46. The uncorroborated article?

At some point, it has to be called what it is. Reaching.

[Kahuna]

50. I read the story from that source. It says that the locals coordinated

with the Feds and got counsel on how to legally proceed with the evictions. The story did not say that the Feds initiated the actions. If the locals confer with the Feds on how to best handle the evictions legally, what would one expect the Feds to do? Tell them to get lost, they're on their own????

[great white snark]

35. PETA should protest the overburdened high horse of Mr. Moore.

x(

[Jakes Progress]

37. I noticed your "funny" snark about Moore's weight.

Do you actually have anything to say about the subject or is living up to your sig your only goal?

[whatchamacallit]

38. People who like to use Moore's income as a weapon

should remember he got rich being who he is. He had a finely tuned bullshit detector when he was poor and still does. That there is a market for his message, does not diminish it.

[BklnDem75]

51. Why is it ok when that weapon is used against this President?

[whatchamacallit]

52. Teddy said it best

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

[BklnDem75]

54. It's a nice quote, but it doesn't answer my question

If the President's salary is considered fair game to criticize, why do you feel Moore should be immune from the same criticism?

[whatchamacallit]

57. Oh... I'm not among those who feel the presidential salary is an issue

unless his position is larded with corporate fat of course.

[TiberiusB]

60. Oh, come on

Why is Moore's wealth off limits, but not Obama's...hmmm

Because Obama is a public servant and Moore isn't?

Too obvious?

[BklnDem75]

64. I see... Just for clarity, what's your point?

Did you follow the conversation?

[TiberiusB]

78. Not obvious enough, apparently

What conversation? The one where it was stated that Moore's wealth should be off limits since he earned it by writing books and producing movies that advance his populist message? You asked why Moore's "salary" (by which I assume you mean his accumulated wealth, and not what he was paid for a single film) can't be used against him, but Obama's can. I said that Obama is taking money to perform a public service, governing the nation. No matter how you care to slice it, Moore is a private citizen who is not, as far as I know, abusing his wealth to the detriment of the vast majority of citizens or the country in general. Obama is a public employee who cannot be fired, is at no risk of a pay cut, gets more than generous benefits, will likely profit immensely from his time as President on the book and lecture circuits (his potential future "salary," if you will), and, most importantly, can directly affect the lives of not just the citizens of this country, but of the entire world. Regardless, who is questioning the President's salary for his job?

Did I miss something?

Being wealthy isn't the issue. The problem is a political system beholden to an enormously wealthy few who use their affluence to warp public policy. This is a significant flaw in the "it's the 99% vs the 1%" argument, which leaves it open to criticism as being anti-wealth, and thus, anti-American. As we all know, money is patriotic and to question our betters is to kick the founding fathers in the gonads...or some such tea party blather.

[BklnDem75]

82. Considering the act of accepting the job of President puts Obama in the 1%,

it's simply a stupid criticism in itself. The point is if you're going to criticize wealth, everyone's fair game, public servant or not.

[TiberiusB]

89. Being rich isn't the issue, or shouldn't be...

Which begs the question, "who said wealth is bad"? I suspect that anyone that appears to be criticizing wealth for wealth's sake is more accurately criticizing extreme wealth (corporate or personal) for it's often deleterious effect on the political system, and democracy in general.
In other words, critics of "wealth" are likely bemoaning Washington being populated by the legally bribed 1% doing the bidding of the lawless .01% while brazenly stealing from the oppressed 99%.

Or at least I assume that's the case.

[BklnDem75]

93. Unfortunately, it's been tossed about quite often

I agree with your overall point.

[whatchamacallit]

96. +1

[totodeinhere]

80. MM tells it like it is. If this president deserves it then MM dishes it out.

And when he thinks that Obama is right then he supports him. I don't see anything wrong with that. I call it consistency and honesty.

[BklnDem75]

98. Not really what was asked

In response to #38, I pointed out that MM's wealth becomes game when people criticizes the President's wealth.

[FrenchieCat]

39. "If it turns out that DHS or the FBI are involved...."

"IF" is the operative word here.

However, since Michael Moore is not an elected official and cannot be held
accountable for his words, he can speculate all he wants,
and folks who want to believe it will, and those who don't, will not.

At the end of the day, to believe that Cities, Counties and States would not confer
with each other on a similar issue that is occurring nationwide would be naive and
unreasonable.

To believe that this President would be personally involved is stretching the matter
in order to make him the responsible party, and to turn Occupy Wall Street into a
movement like the Tea Party, which rather than concentrating on issues and how they
can make a positive difference, would prefer to simply blame one man for all of the
perceived problems in the world, in order to simplify the aim of their ire.

At this point, those active participants of Occupy Wall Street will have to determine whether their
goal, at the end of the day, is to be mad at everyone based on speculative heresy or murky causal link, and start to activate as a spoiler in the upcoming elections, or whether they actually want to affect change towards the positive, and in so doing, not react based on rumors which will only make them vulnerable to manipulation by those players whose biggest wish is to see this President fail, no matter how the end result might affect those currently in the 99%.

To this point, I have been a supporter of this movement, and have donated to the cause.
I have also written to the various elected officials in the California State government,
registrating my contempt for their methods and their approach in dealing with the movement. I have written to the governor, the CA Attorney General on down to the Oakland US Representative of the district and the mayor (as I am in Oakland), and also to Pres. Obama.

However, if the OWS movement wants to find a way to shrink their numbers, I would suggest that they go after Pres. Obama, and act as spoilers. What they will find, is that many will stop supporting them, as they start to understand that this movement may only lead to an all Republican government in the near future; something that would be very harmful to the overwhelming majority of the 99%, and would be advantageous to the 1%; which is a complete contradiction to what the movement presented itself to be about originally.

Pointing fingers has consequences, and so as long as everyone fully understands what that might mean, then they should go for what they know. If they lose support due to it, well, at least they understood that could be the case. If they choose to place blame as their overarching concern, then they should know that taking actions that would eventually put the 99% in a worse position then they are now will only demonstrate that even those who mean well can sometimes hurt the cause. Unintended consequences or not, it all will have an effect.....and that will be the lasting message.

This is the place in history where the OWS movement can either go the way of the 1968 protests which gave us Richard Nixon, or not....and I guess it will depend how much some in the movement, who call themselves speaking for it...have to lose. Being rich doesn't make one evil...but sometimes it can make one less sensitive to what others may have to lose in a long run. None of us are perfect, and I would not assume that somehow Michael Moore is an exception.

[libinnyandia]

59. Michael Moore will never be a credible voice of the progressive

movement.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. he already is and has been for a long time whether you like it or even whether I like it or not

[libinnyandia]

66. A lot of progressives think he is a good voice. A lot of people

who aren't part of the movement don't have a particu;arly good view of him. To them he is more of an entertainer. And with his take on Obama I don't think he will have a positive impact on what's happening in this country.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. I totally disagree - he is certainly not urging people to vote against Obama

or to support a third party. He is telling people that both political parties are controlled by Wall Street Corporate interest - but the Republicans are worse, much worse. This is not only a realistic understanding of the political process and an honest understanding of the political process - it is rational and pragmatic understanding of the political process. If progressives try to bamboozle people into believing that President Obama as something he is not - we only end up with a lot of very disillusioned and disappointed people.

[libinnyandia]

69. He did it before and could do it again. There are better voices.

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. well there is no indication that is he agenda and there are always better voices

for everything. The reality is he is a major voice - not the only one - but an important one who is certainly doing a lot more for the progressive movement than the vast majority of other public figures associated with the social justice movement If we manage to avoid the Apocalypse and somehow America does become a democratic society - the just society - When the history of how that came about is finally written - his work will surely be mentioned in a most positive light - while almost the entire Democratic Party leadership will be spoke of with scorn.

[libinnyandia]

72. How will Ralph Nader be remembered?

[Douglas Carpenter]

85. as a great man who raised the consciousness of a nation at a time when both political

parties were utterly controlled by the almost unlimited power of the corporations.

With a bit of time and a broader historic perspective people will see that it is bit narrow to simply blame him for George W. Bush. He will no more be seen as a villain who empowered the far right than Eugene Victor Debs or Robert LaFollette were at an earlier time. There will be a lot more criticism of how the Democratic Party came to so enthusiastically push the very same economic policies that only a few decades earlier it fought tooth and nail to oppose.

[libinnyandia]

90. I guess he ultimately failed to change the system. There will be n

someone else who can get the job done. What he did accomplish, he did not do alone. There were democrats and even some republicans who worked with him. There were some positive things done.

[Puglover]

102. Sez the anonymous poster on the internets.

Gotcha :rofl:

[TiberiusB]

61. Coordination is one thing, oppression is another

'Cause that's what happened, and that might be why people are stressing about such a coordinated assault and the fact that the Fed might be behind it.

<snark>

Should it conclusively turn out that the DHS was involved and encouraged such unconstitutional actions, I certainly expect Obama will make an effort to see that those responsible step down immediately.

After all, if there is one thing this administration is about, it is the rule of law...

</snark>

[Major Hogwash]

91. Michael jumped the shark a long time ago. He is a media whore, and nothing more.

There are dozens of newsclips of interviews with Moore bashing the Democrats over the last 16 years.
Only to be followed within weeks, and in some cases, days, of when he bashed the Republicans for the very same thing.

The fact that Michael is even on tv is mindblowing considering his history of saying one thing and then flip-flopping on the very same issue within days, weeks, or months.
Michael gravitates towards the camera as often as Bill Maher, or any other semi-serious political commentator, on the occasional basis trying to make his point, whatever it is that particular day.
But, in reality, Michael Moore has more in common with Penn Gillette, an avowed Libertarian, and Jon Stewart, another Libertarian, than he does with most of the Democrats.

Michael is angry about the monetary system in this country and the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor.
But, he loses touch with reality when he tries to connect that system with the political system, and then blames both political parties.

The Democrats weren't in charge of Congress in 2001 and they weren't in charge when the Bush tax cuts were passed by rendition. The Democrats agreed to a tax cut for the middle class and the poor in 2002, and passing that tax cut bill required a super majority in the Senate, 60 votes, which they got. But, then the Republicans used rendition in 2003, which only required a simple majority of 51 votes to extend those tax cuts to the rich.

Senators Kerry and Kennedy were both for a middle class tax cut that would also help out the poor.
But, they were against extending those tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% amongst us.
However, Michael does not make that distinction when complaining about both parties because he does not understand the simple mechanics of how his own government functions!!!

It's one thing to complain.
But, it's a whole 'nother ball game when he doesn't understand the rules of how the game is played . . . and so then he just starts yelling at all the players!

[chill_wind]

76. Who coordinated them?

K & R.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. seeking REAL political change is about changing the range of discussion. not following the fickle

fluctuations of polls and popularity contest as if we were competing on American Idol. Imagine if the early civil rights in Montgomery, Alabama decided to cancel their plans for boycotts and demonstrations because some polling firm advised them how unpopular they were in Alabama. Imagine if the early anti-war movement decided there was no point pushing on because the polls showed Americans overwhelmingly supporting the war in Viet Nam. Imagine if the early gay rights movement in say 1970 decided to cancel their marches and demonstrations because polling showed the overwhelming majority of the public considered them either criminals or mentally ill.

Mass actions are about changing the discussion and making the debate totally different not ratcheting up favorable polling numbers. The 99% movement has put the issue of income disparity and the power of the corporations into the center of mainstream debate for the first time in more than a generation. This is the real world of politics that can actually effect real change - not the make believe world where we vote for the latest slick sounding politicians with the latest slick sounding sound bites and real change never actually happens.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

94. WTF is that even supposed to mean? nt

[blkmusclmachine]

87. Maybe.

[and-justice-for-all]

92. There was a phone conference of several Governors....

from across the country. Not sure the details or if the Feds are involed.

[truebrit71]

95. So wait, it's 'Bash Michael Moore Day' today? I thought it was on even-numbered days...

:eyes:

Michael Moore is a great American who has ALWAYS spoken truth to power...

[vaberella]

97. Hardly...I know I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories.

I'm surprised so many people here do.

[sundancekid]

99. oh, it's the i-kids with i-tones: irritating, irresponsible, irreconcilable n/t