OWS: So who do we look to in order to implement the demands?

[Township75]

I'm curious about exactly who OWS is looking to in order to pass legislation that meets OWS demands and concerns. Anyone know?

Obama is part of the 1%...so is Biden...so are the Clintons, the Bushes, Kerry's, Romney, Perry, Cain, and pretty much every current and former presidential candidate, congressional rep, and senator. Who here believes these people are going to pass legislation to their own detriment, and why?

Who does the movement look to for change?

[Avalux]

1. Here's how it's going to work....

OWS and what it represents - the 99%, has power in numbers and will influence legislation without having a 'leader'. Politicians who want to stay in office or be elected will need to support OWS demands and already, Obama is using OWS language in his speeches. It's not a matter of looking to 'someone' to implement. It's a matter of those who are able to implement joining the movement.

We The People in charge, as it should be.

[Scuba]

2. And voting out anybody who doesn't get on board. n/t

[Avalux]

3. Exactly! n/t

[Township75]

6. That sounds like business as usual, and what was going on before OWS.

I agree that the movement doesn't need a leader, but we do need people to implement it. As best I can tell, the movement is going to look to pols who voted for bailing out bankers and giving/extending tax cuts to the 1% for the changes. What will they do once they have the votes and are in power?

Are these people going to pass meaningful legislation...not just stuff that sounds great, but has hidden loopholes to keep the status quo??? I guess that is my concern, and I don't see any option other than voting for those people and crossing your fingers...and that means nothing has changed.

[Rene Descartes]

7. That is not likely...

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

[lunasun]

10. Hello- from wall st journal hello murdoch owned and please wall st journal is the name

[Rene Descartes]

15. And your point would be...?

Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is author of "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond," forthcoming from Rowman and Littlefield.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Ou

[Avalux]

16. Please don't expect me to take that seriously. You'll have to do better. n/t

[Rene Descartes]

18. Actually, a majority of the People have figured it out.

Perhaps one day you will too.

Poll: Washington to blame more than Wall Street for economy.

•When asked whom they blame more for the poor economy, 64% of Americans name the federal government and 30% say big financial institutions.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-17/poll-wall-street-protests/50804978/1

[Avalux]

21. Do you work for BofA?

That poll supports overall discontent among the people and what we all know - corps run the govt.

[Rene Descartes]

47. I do not work for, nor have I ever utilized the services of a corporate bank.

I prefer depositing (lending) my money to credit unions in my community.

How about you?

[jwirr]

24. Nice job pushing gop talking points.

[subterranean]

28. A majority of the people blame both Wall Street AND the government.

From that same USA Today article:

•78% say Wall Street bears a great deal or a fair amount of blame for the economy; 87% say the same about Washington.

[sabrina 1]

42. Washington is owned by Wall Street.

Of course they share the blame.

The real poll that both DC and Wall St. should worry about are the ones that show a majority of people supporting the OWS movement. And it's only one month old!

'Get Wall Street Out of our Government'! I guess you didn't know what this movement was about. And how could you if you are using MSM sources and Murdoch to inform yourself.

[Rene Descartes]

48. "a majority of people supporting the OWS movement"

Okay, if you say so.

[sabrina 1]

52. Um, no, I am not the one saying so. Guess Murdoch's

Wall Street Journal has not been publishing the latest polls.

Eg, last weeks Time poll showed over 54% of the people supporting OWS, and nearly 80% supporting their slogan 'they got bailed out, we got sold out'. That number has increased now to 57%. In NY the latest polls show 65% support the OWS movement while 80% support them being there.

And it's only the first month. Amazing numbers, they are more popular than both political parties put together. And globally the numbers are even higher. The movement has spread like wildfire around the country, and around the World. So, sorry to disappoint to. Those numbers will only increase as more people join the movement which is growing rapidly every day.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Exultant Democracy]

31. Not surprised to see you pushing this non-scientific and already debunked poll

[sabrina 1]

41. Lol, the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal!!

Welcome to DU. You should know that any Murdoch owned publication is not considered a reliable source here. And you just proved it with that bunch of garbage from the once proud newspaper.

I suppose we need to see it every once in a while as a reminder of why it has become nothing more than a tabloid, rightwing rag.

Try reading the Protesters OWN journal, where they speak for themselves. It's called 'The Occupied Wall Street Journal'.

[kctim]

11. Pipe dream

"Politicians who want to stay in office or be elected" will listen to the tens of thousands of those who vote for them in their districts, NOT the hundreds who support OWS demands.

[jwirr]

26. OWS understands that it is still the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

And there are polls that also show that people support OWS.

[kctim]

30. Of course "people" support OWS

"The People" is a different story though.

[deacon]

58. I agree wholeheartedly. There should not be one face. One face leaves the media and GOP to target

one person to go through the usual character assassination meat grinder formula.

[leftstreet]

4. OWS isn't looking up to leaders. OWS is leading n/t

[Rene Descartes]

5. "Who does the movement look to for change?"

The mirror.

[Township75]

8. And who in there votes in congress or signs legislation into law?

Do we turn to those that have backed the bankers before and the 1% before, and just hope for the best after the election...or are there other people in mind who will be in govt and have a vote?

[Rene Descartes]

14. The People get to select who represents them in the House every two years;

the Oval Office every four years; and the Senate every six years.

The Tea Party effected change in 2010 by means of that process and it is the only legitimate means available to OWS.

[Township75]

17. That is an excellent point.

The tea party did effect change in 2010, and we will see if their reps follow through and if they are accountable. But OWS could do the same.

What I want to note though is that many of the TP candidates were NOT establishment candidates. The tea party voted for "new" republicans in the primary and not recycled ones.

Will OWS do this in the Dem party...someplace else? And who are those candidates? Who gets the presidential vote? Obama has always bailed out the banks, and my guess is, that is who will be named as the person to implement the changes....business as usual.

[Rene Descartes]

20. "TP candidates were NOT establishment candidates"

That pretty much sums it up. Typically, House members are reelected at a rate of 96+%. If OWS is to be successful, they will have to recruit and back NON-establishment candidates.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. WTF? The Tea Party did no such thing in 2010. Voters stayed

at home in Dem Blue Dog, i.e., conservative Dem, districts, Blue Dogs thereby got stomped and Repukes made gains.

Before you go talking about 'the only legitimate means" you should read up on your history of the French Revolution, specifically the Tennis Court Oath and what it represents. Keep in mind that there are calls for a National Occupy Assembly to convene in Philadelphia on July 4, 2012. Could this be our generation's Tennis Court Oath? I fervently hope it is.

[kctim]

29. Ours would not be a revolution of

The People vs. "The Government."

It will be The People vs. The People.

[Township75]

32. The tea party did what I said it did, you need to reread the post.

The TP went into primaries and voted for their candidates over establishment republican candidates. Then the came out for the general election.

Will OWS supporters do the same? Are they going to do something different? Are they going to trust a president and politicians that have a track record of backing banks and the rich, just because they change their tune? I don't know, but I think the movement will have no legislative impact if it doesn't think about how their demands get put into law.

[coalition_unwilling]

36. Sometimes posting here can be really confusing. I thought

I was replying to a poster named 'Rene Descartes' at post #14, not to your post #8. In other words, I think I was agreeing with your post #8 but taking issue with 'Descartes' post #14.

Or are you saying that you agree with Descartes, post #14 and thus disagree with me?

Does this make sense? Color me bewildered :)

[Township75]

37. Uh oh...I might make things worse ;)

I was not saying what Descartes said, but I do agree with what he said.

I do think change from OWS will have to come through legislative action...none of this moral BS I hear now about changing the dialogue in politics, and bringing issues to the table. Noble acts, but fleeting longevity and impact on society.

In order to get that change via legislation, my opinion is that we can't trust people in the 1% or incumbents (same thing usually) that promise us they will do our work. I think after the election it will be business as usual, and the OWS movement will have lost its steam at that point. I give the TP credit for getting new people in the primaries and telling the Repub establishment that there selected candidates can go to hell. In a way, Dems did this when we chose Obama over Clinton...Clinton was definitely the establishment choice.

Now, someone that knows the issues better than myself can make an argument otherwise that would persuade me, but that is how I feel as of now.

Did I just leave you more confused? I can live if I left you unpersuaded, but if I made things worse I am stopping before more damage is done:(

[coalition_unwilling]

39. No, I think I was shooting from the hipin my post #25 about the TP's accomplishments

or lack thereof. There's no easy way to retract a post once the 1-hour edit window has expired. So I'll just say that I pretty much agree with what you have written immediately above (and in your post #8) and that my 'WTF' post #25 in response to Descartes' post #14 was intemperate. I don't want to give the TP movement too much credit when a good deal of its supposed 'success' had to do with depressed turnout in Blue Dog districts in the general election. Had OWS existed in 2010, I dare say the Congress would look quite a bit different and more progressive today.

I have often suggested to DUers that they think before they post and it seems like this is advice I would be well-served to follow myself. Something like "Physician, heal myself :)

[Township75]

40. If it makes you feel any better...

I learned a new word..."intemperate". Had to look it up...all thanks...to you! :)

[Avalux]

27. So.....OWS can only legitimately effect change by means of that process?

OWS is about changing the status quo, changing the broken process in place now. It's a movement, not a fabrication of a movement by big money who SELECTED Republicans outside of the mainstream to run for office.

A movement doesn't need to follow process or people. It CHANGES process and the course of history. Those who oppose get left behind.

[badtoworse]

38. So how would that work in practice?

I don't see any path to change here. What do you mean by "change the process"?

[Rene Descartes]

49. "A movement doesn't need to follow process or people."

Perhaps not, but it does need at least of few REAL ideas.

[TheKentuckian]

43. No they didn't. They altered the faces of the status quo.

Teabaggers are built to maintain, support, and expand the existing power structure not change it.

Change my ass.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[TheKentuckian]

51. They sure do, that is why they funded, promoted, organized, and led them.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers. No Fox, no political advisers, no Dick Armey, no instant credibility=no dice.

They exist to maintain the existing power structures and to enhance wealth. They are a tool of the wealthy.

[Rene Descartes]

56. ..

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Enrique]

9. Steny Hoyer

:shrug:

[hootinholler]

33. Being from Md...

:rofl:

Steny :rofl: Hoyer

:rofl:

Um, sure.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[coalition_unwilling]

13. I look for the National Assembly on July 4, 2012 to report out a slate

of candidates and\or endorsements. Those who wish to survive politically will need to adapt or go the way of the dinosaurs.

[Township75]

19. Interesting. Is that actually something that is planned?

Who gets to decide about the endorsement? People out protesting...people who identify with OWS?

If that is coming, I will be curious who they support for president, giving Obama and Romney/Perry/Cains track record on this.

[coalition_unwilling]

22. OK, I am probably going to get flamed for this, but I have seen

calls for a National 'Occupy' Assembly to convene in Philadeplphia on July 4, 2012 to assemble a list of demands or grievances. The proposed National Assembly would include two delegates (one man and one woman) from each of the 435 congressional districts.

The reason I may get flamed is that this call for the Assembly apparently may not yet have the official backing of the New York City OWS General Assembly and may be only a 'call' at this point and not a done deal. I am proceeding as if the Assembly will occur and think it may have a very ambitious project by the time July 4, 2012 rolls around.

If you have not yet visited an Occupy site, I strongly recommend it.

Please see my report of my visit to Occupy Los Angeles:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2134990

As to a presidential nomination or endorsement, I see it going to a true dark horse, i.e., someone not beholden to Wall Street or either of the two current parties.

Fascinating times we live in, eh?

[Township75]

34. Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I don't follow the OWS closely as I am not in the streets. That would be neat if they had a convention.

For this:
"As to a presidential nomination or endorsement, I see it going to a true dark horse, i.e., someone not beholden to Wall Street or either of the two current parties.

Fascinating times we live in, eh?"

I personally think the movement will just become a get out the vote effort for Dems if it is only going to back incumbents that voted for bailouts and tax cut extensions. Once those incumbents get back in office, it will be business as usual, and the OWS movement will be out of gas (IMO).

Fascinating times for sure. I have to say the OWS movement has taken on more steam than I ever thought it would, and I'm not being critical of it, rather just thinking about most movements.

[Javaman]

23. What should happen is members of the OWS should run for office.

with the demands of the OWS as their platform.

They would have an instant constituency.

That will be the next step.

Is it too late to enter the congressional elections for 2012?

I don't believe so. Now would be the time to run.

[Township75]

35. I think what you wrote is the best path forward for the movement.

I just don't trust incumbents to bring about change, and definitely not the type of change OWS wants. I think incumbents are going to try to use OWS as a get out the vote effort for themselves, and once in power, business as usual.

[Javaman]

44. Yup, you nailed it.

the institutionalized powers are all about changing the message to reflect popular opinion, then making it their own.

the OWS protesters need to get out in front and have their own candidates, thus blunting any effort by the current parties to use them for their own purposes.

[Township75]

53. Just curuious about the pic in your posts.

I have seen it a few places on DU. Who is the guy flipping people off, what is the event, who is he flipping off and why is it so popular? Thanks.

[Javaman]

54. The 1968 DNC in Chicago.

No one famous that I'm aware of, just a opportune moment by a photographer of a protester flipping off the cops.

I have always loved the photo. It's speaks volumes of who we are, what we became and who we can become again.

Cheers!

[Zorra]

45. We can only pretty much trust ourselves to do this at this point.

The 1% will voluntarily relinquish control proportionately to the degree that we eliminate their personal wealth through direct democratic action.

If we force them into poverty, they won't be able to pay anyone (legislators) off anymore.

Since the very worst thing (in their minds) that could possibly happen to them is to go broke and have to live in poverty, they will voluntarily accede to our demands for systemic equality.

If they resist, we cause them to lose more assets until they accede.

And accede they shall.

[socialist_n_TN]

55. "We can only pretty much trust ourselves to do this at this point"

Pretty much sums it up for me too. But then I'm a revolutionary socialist, so this is what I've ALWAYS expected. NO ONE INSIDE THE ENTRENCHED POWER STRUCTURE WILL WILLINGLY DISMANTLE THE SYSTEM THAT BENEFITS THEM. They never have and they never will.