The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Does Endorsing The #Occupy Movement Signal That The Administration Is Going ‘Scorched Earth’?

Posted on | October 19, 2011 | 32 Comments

by Smitty

Via Althouse, you have to wonder what, if any, thought occurs in senior Democrat noggins:

President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.

Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that “the protests you’re seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don’t seem to play by the same set of rules.” Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

I just finished Explaining Postmodernism on the flight to Vegas.

While falling short of any clinical diagnosis of insanity, I’m moving closer to believing these senior Democrat leaders are fairly close to religious fanatics. Or maybe jilted lovers, who are willing to burn down the house around that which they formerly loved, rather than let him/her enjoy liberty. After having stashed enough money overseas where the results won’t matter, of course.

Keep your powder dry and your eyes peeled, Americans.

Category: #Occupy, Ann Althouse, Progressivism

Comments

32 Responses to “Does Endorsing The #Occupy Movement Signal That The Administration Is Going ‘Scorched Earth’?”

  1. Joe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 10:22 am

    I said this from the start.  But that does not make me a political genius, I just have common sense.  The reason we find some smells offensive because they signal danger (disease).  A fresh baked apple pie has a good odor.  A latrine smells in a bad way. 

    OWS smells bad. 

  2. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 10:48 am

    You’ve got it backward. The Obama administration isn’t “endorsing” the Occupy movement, they are “co-opting” it.

    The approach they’re using is slightly different than the approach the GOP used to turn the Tea Party into just another partisan hack HQ, but the outcome is the same.

    The Tea Party started as a relatively non-partisan opposition to TARP, etc. The GOP co-opted it using big-money astroturf PAC ops, such that within a year it was nothing more than “Republican good, Democrat bad,” even to the extent of pretending that Scott Brown was a “conservative.”

    Occupy also started as a relatively non-partisan opposition to Wall Street bailout BS. The Democrats are co-opting it using their ability pack the crowd for a brief period, using Big Labor rank-and-file, MoveOn and Democracy For America pleas for participation, etc. in concert with Obama’s “jobs bill” bus tour. If they can seize the Occupy pulpit for a day or two and talk up the “jobs bill,” the media will run with it from there as if that was all Occupy was ever about. 

  3. Joe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 10:58 am

    Scott Brown was a “conservative.”
    I do not recall Stacy during those heady pudding days calling Scott Brown a conservative.  Go back and look at what Stacy wrote (and I do not recall any other conservative blogs worth anything saying anything different).  He was a republican winning Ted Kennedy’s seat.  He was a no vote on Obamacare and on that he held true.  He is a very moderate republican Senator in a very blue liberal state.  He is competitive in his reelection campaign only because he is reflecting the views of his constituents. 

    I am sorry Scott Brown is more liberal than I like (I am sorry Massachusetts is so liberal), but he is a hell of a lot better than Coakley would have been.  And unlike Mike Castle, Scott Brown was upfront about where he was coming from and is not a back stabing establishment republican. 

  4. Joe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 11:01 am

    I disagree about co-opting only that Obama Alexrod are not co-opting OWS for a day.  They think this sort of thing might actually help them going forward.  And I do not disagree about establishment republicans trying to do the same with the tea party (with various success). 

    But I have been to tea party events and I walked around the OWS gatherings near me.  Tea partiers do not smell bad.  OWS stink. 

  5. DACISME
    October 19th, 2011 @ 11:03 am

    I think the President’s position is fairly consistent,  I seem to recall something along the lines of; “I’m the only person between you and the pitchforks”.  That said, the continuing escalation of words seems to be showing up in Obama’s fundraising numbers.  We’ll see!  I truly don’t understand what precipitated this though, wouldn’t these demonstrations have been better to have this in the spring 2012?    I suspect the first good frost will separate those who are committed from those who should be committed.

  6. ThePaganTemple
    October 19th, 2011 @ 11:03 am

    Thank you Joe, its goddamn refreshing to see somebody finally giving Brown a break. Yeah, he’s more liberal than I would like, enough to piss me off from time to time, but goddamn what can you expect from a state that sent Ted Kennedy to the Senate multiple times?

  7. ThePaganTemple
    October 19th, 2011 @ 11:08 am

    Obama and the Democrats think that, deep down, the OWS Movement and the Tea Party are acting out of the same sense of frustration and anger at the system. I think they honestly believe that if they can’t win over Republican voters by going the usual rout they can win them over by way of OWS. Like the Tea Party is going to look at these scumbags and say “hey maybe these guys have the right answer”.

    Or maybe they figure the Independent voters will compare and contrast the Tea Party to OWS and somehow, in some way only a Democrat could possibly understand, those Independents who are leaving the Democrats in droves will come back to the Democrats, just on the basis of Obama’s support of them. After all, its a sign Obama recognizes how bad things are and he really, really wants to help. I know it sounds contradictory and stupid, but there it is. These are Democrats we’re talking about.

  8. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 11:10 am

    Joe,

    I didn’t say that Stacy called Brown a conservative. I said that the co-opted Tea Party tried to pass him off as one. Ferinstance.

    I’ve never accused Stacy of being part of the establishment. Silly and feckless, yes, dedicated to The Man, no.

  9. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 11:14 am

    Joe,

    I’ve been to both Tea Party events and Occupy events as well. I didn’t notice any differences in smell — maybe the Tea Party was a little more Estee Lauder and Occupy was a little more patchouli, but not so much you’d notice.

    What I mostly noticed was that the pre-co-option Occupy St. Louis crowd was perhaps 1/25th the size of the pre-co-option St. Louis Tea Party events held in the same venue.

  10. richard mcenroe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 11:31 am

    This is a profound example of the isolated Obama Presidency other commentators have written about.

    It is much of a piece with his sudden desire to immediately get involved in Sub-Saharan Africa.  People like him, he thinks, when he does cool army stuff, they write nice things.  They’ll vote for him if he does cool army stuff. They’ll vote for him if they see him with cheering crowds of cool kids, too.

    It is likely that Obama no longer recognizes the effect his actions are having, or indeed associates them with any result beyond his short-term gratification.  It is perfectly conceivable that his previous behavior regarding Obamacare and the economy was at least coherent, with regard to an aim, unstated but deducible, of “humbling” America, of bringing it “back into line” with the rest of a world to which it held itself “exceptional.” One could extend that theory to his many adventures in the Middle East, which are credibly viewable as an effort to undo America’s influence as a world power and trustworthy ally. 
     
    Endorsing #OWS serves no such aim.  Obama is politically insane to endorse them, unless his only information is coming from the laundered and tailored MSM coverage.  It’s difficult to see how he could be planning his campaigns and actions around CNN and MSNBC.  Jarrett probably doesn’t care, as she stuffs another pillowcase with the people’s money, but is David Axelrod that tone-deaf as well?  A good mercenary needs to keep a feel for the way the wind is blowing outside his barracks, and if nothing else David Axelrod is a good mercenary.  Can he have given up arguing about this, and the rock star megabuck bus tours?

    Even Democrats with more working brain cells than Henry Waxman (four, at last count) are avoiding our toxic President.

    Is it possible that the People’s House has become Obama’s Playpen?

  11. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 11:49 am

    “you have to wonder what, if any, thought occurs in senior Democrat noggins:”
    You have to keep in mind that the current senior national Democrats are hard left boomers from the McGovernite epoch.(Think Pelosi ,Durbin,Kerry, et. al.)
    They’re still “down for the struggle” against “the man”, even though they now, ironically,are the ‘man’ and have wrought a liberty stifling political machine.
    They’re hellbent on a collectivist tyranny.

  12. Joe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

    Okay.  I am not sure who the TeaPartyExpress is and I find most candidate PAC ads inane (at least Ladd’s are funny and a parody of the genre).  That particular ad would have been fine to raise money for Brown beyond Massachusetts (which did happen) but probably counter productive in blue liberal Massachusetts.   But I am not sure a PAC ad for Brown proves your point.  If anything, it goes along with Bill Buckey’s mantra of voting and supporting the most conservative candidate who can win.  Remember the bianary at that point was Coakely vs. Brown.  That was a no brainer, vote Brown. 

  13. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

    Yes.

    The good news is: the occupiers I see on a daily basis at Camp Stinky McPherson Square would make a very poor marching army for any “scorched earth” campaign.  And they don’t look likely to ever leave their tents to find a voting booth either – at least not without proper community organizer guidance of course.

    d(^_^)bhttp://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  14. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 12:06 pm

    And btw – there don’t seem to be enough of them to cobble together a decent marching platoon, much less an army.

  15. Joe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

    The early tea party events were mostly anti Tarp and anti spending.  It has certainly expanded beyond that and the money boys and PACs are trying to co-opt them.  I know, they call me all the time looking for donations (I do not give to cold call solicitations so they are wasting their time with me). 

    But at its core, tea partiers still want limited and smaller government. That is the core principle uniting them.  And that sentiment is truly grass root, even if there is a major attempt to make them something else. 

    The core principle of OWS?  Greedy rich people have all the money and give us free stuff?  I understand the underlying frustrations may be similar, but the thought process is very different. 

  16. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 12:17 pm

    Okay, so apparently you’re an anarchist.

    You’re an odd Austrian, though, seeing as you know so much.

  17. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

    What we called Scott Brown is the “least awful option.”

    However, there are more awful options, like Mitt Romney, or Copperheads with a filibuster proof Senate.

  18. CalMark
    October 19th, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

    Whoa.

    Scott Brown made explicit promises to to conservative groups to get their endorsement.  It’s OK for him to backstab them because he’s from Massachusetts, and wants to be re-elected?  Sorry.  The actual (sorry) record.  Campaign promises:

    – No more bailouts (then voted for Dodd-Frank)
    – Uphold DADT (then voted to repeal DADT)
    – Pro-choice but against the Federal government funding abortion (then voted to keep funding Planned Parenthood).

    Brown’s constituents are EVERYBODY who voted for him.  That includes conservatives.  Remember, the Tea Party gave him a huge boost.

    If he wants to use make promises to get conservative support then then vote like a leftist Democrat, he should re-register as one.

  19. CalMark
    October 19th, 2011 @ 1:17 pm

    Smitty nails it.

    The Democrats are religious fanatics, and Marxism is their faith.  They see it crashing around them.  They elected the guy they’ve been grooming for a generation to be the bestest, superest, most excellent ever Marxist mullah/salesmen they could find to install it, and people STILL aren’t buying.

    They’re desperate.  That makes them even more dangerous than ever.

    A cornered fanatic with nothing to lose stands a good chance of doing an obscene amount of damage, even winning the fight, if the other side (John Boehner, call your office) fights less than full-out, or not at all.

  20. Joe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

    I am not thrilled with all those votes (except DADT because I don’t care).  But your alternative was Coakley, there was no way a more conservative candidate was getting elected as senator in Massachusetts, and even him being lame helps us get a majority in the Senate which we need for special prosecutors, rulemaking, law making, and approving (and blocking) Obama judicial apointments. 

    I am not a Scott Brown fan.  He woudl be absolutely unacceptable in even a purple state (let alone a red one).  We could have done better than Christine O’Donnell or Mike Castle in Delaware if the GOP had not betrayed the voters of Delaware.  But unfortunately, unless you change a lot of hearts and minds in the Bay State, Scott Brown is about as good as you are going to get. 

  21. Joe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 1:31 pm

    ?  More aweful that what?  Barack Obama being re-elected? 

  22. Adjoran
    October 19th, 2011 @ 2:08 pm

    Those who will accept only purity are doomed to eternal disappointment.

  23. Adjoran
    October 19th, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

    It’s really rather simple.  All politicians have a base of support.  If they can broaden that base enough, they have a free hand.  But when they are losing support among the general public, the base is their refuge.

    Obama’s base is the radical left.  His mother, his father, his stepfather, his grandparents, and his “mentor” Frank Marshall Davis were all Marxists.  He went to Columbia and Harvard, campuses where Marxists are treated as mainstream, even given deference.  He moved among the radicals like Ayers and Wright and learned to work within the corrupt Chicago system and corrupt unions.  These are his people.

    Obama must embrace them because he cannot afford to lose them.  He can lose the Jewish vote and Wall Street money, but he cannot lose his base.

    Much of the Democratic Party has degenerated into this same radical stew.  They only pretend to be centrists or patriots for electoral purposes; their hearts are with the protestors.

    When the chips are down, you draw your family close.

  24. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 2:34 pm

    Leaving aside to what extent that the TEA Party has been co-opted, I don’t think the OWS movement is capable of being co-opted for one it’s not unified enough to be tasked. Debbie Wassermann-Schultz thinks that They’ll help the SDs fulfill one of their demands by getting the Senate to confirm Obama’s nomination to the new consumer credit agency. I don’t think that’s the level of change the OWS crowd is believing in.

  25. richard mcenroe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

    Mitt Romney’s MA.  Barack Obama’s America.  Compare and contrast.

  26. richard mcenroe
    October 19th, 2011 @ 3:01 pm

    Did anyone in the WH even tell Obama #OWP had been endorsed by the Nazis?  Or did he just not listen?

  27. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

    Obama’s statement about understanding the anger of the OWSers wouldn’t hurt him, I imagine something along those lines was said about the bonus marchers. The problem for this regime is it never understood the TEA Party. They truly believe that the TP was from the very beginning an astroturf uprising founded, funded and organized by the RNC and it’s evil auxiliaries in the VRWC. What political clout the TP exercised in the 2010 elections resulted from the protesters getting involved in the processes of politics. I don’t see this movement making that logical leap.

  28. ThePaganTemple
    October 19th, 2011 @ 3:20 pm

    A politician lying to a voter. Why, I never.

  29. DaveO
    October 19th, 2011 @ 3:29 pm

    You have evidence of these allegations?

    TEA Party just astroturf? Check – heard that many times before. Always disproven, but that is a reality that escapes many. For Madam Speaker Pelosi preferred this talking point.

    OWS is just like the TEA Party? Check – heard that many times before. Not as a promotion of OWS either, but to undermine the credibility of the TEA Party. This connection is sponsored by Senator Schumer and his handlers.

    And today, allegations of sexual assault at OWS – not something the TEA Party was ever charged with, but I’m sure there’s some latent trauma Axelrod will be able to dig up. Veep Biden is certainly hoping for rapes to occur. http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2011/10/18/occupy-cleveland-protester-alleges-she-was-raped/ 
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-continues-warn-rapes-and-murders-if-jobs-bill-isnt-passed_598267.html

    OWS, by its literature, rhetoric, and actions is heavily partisan. Kevin Williamson reported that the literature available is doctrinaire Leninist and Maoist interpretations of Marx. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280335/follow-red-flag-kevin-d-williamson

    The emails Breitbart got hold of show the OWS was planned, synch’d and logistically supported by the Progressives. Under Tim Kaine, OWS was too radical, but under Wasserman Schultz OWS is pitch perfect.

  30. CalMark
    October 19th, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

    Sorry.  I don’t buy it.

    When the chips are down, Democrats hardly ever break ranks.  Yet it’s not only understandable, but perfectly acceptable for GOP squishes to do so.  For the “greater purpose.”  Which is…what?

    Small government conservative goals?  When that kind of legislation comes up, the same squishes are usually lining up (outspoken and proud!) with the Democrats.

    Bottom line:  it’s OK and even laudable for Republicans to kick sand in the faces of their supporters “for the big picture.”  Because “we need them.”  Even though they’re never there when we REALLY need them.

  31. CalMark
    October 19th, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

    /irony alert/

    Everyone knows the dirtbags filthying up Wall Street are just better, more noble Tea Partiers.  Just goes to show that Obama & Co. embrace the Tea Parties.  And that the Tea Partiers are racist Nazis, just like the left has been saying all along.

    Incoherent?  You betcha.  Contradictory?  Absolutely.  But consistency is the hobgoblin of small (i.e., conservative by definition) minds.  A brain as large and magnificent as Obama’s is utterly incomprehensible to the racist scum that is America.

  32. Anonymous
    October 19th, 2011 @ 4:38 pm

    DaveO,

    If you’re going to reply to me, you might want to reply to things I actually claimed.

    I never said the Tea Party was “just astroturf.” In fact, I was one of the early non-Republican bloggers saying exactly the opposite. What I said here is that the Tea Party has since been co-opted by astroturf GOP PACs. And it has.

    Nor have I said anywhere that OWS is “just like the Tea Party.” Among other things, it’s a lot smaller. Its complaint seems to have been similar at first, the solutions it centers around never have been.

    I’m not surprised to hear of sexual assault at Occupy events. Another major difference between them and the Tea Parties is that the Tea Parties didn’t camp out in parks overnight for weeks on end.

    I don’t know what planet you’re living on, but on Earth neither major political party is characterized by “doctrinaire Leninist and Maoist interpretations of Marx.” Both major parties are socialist/progressive in major respects, but neither is anything close to Leninist.