Why aren't there any anti-Obama signs at the OWS protests?

[leftstreet]

And no I'm not advocating there should be, just asking

The most visible political, economic and social symbol in the US is, and always has been, the President.

Why is Obama, so far, getting a pass?

:shrug:

[murielm99]

1. Because he isn't Wall Street?

This is about the banksters and the Wall Street people.

I have my share of criticisms of the President, but this protest isn't about him. It sort of irks me that you asked that here. Obama catches enough hell here as it is.

[leftstreet]

3. Many of Obama's Wall Street occupiers (appointments) are the reason for the problems

Don't mean to irk you, the antiwar protests were about war, but Bush was the symbolic target

[defendandprotect]

46. Obama has a Wall Street team ... which has worked well FOR Wall Street -- !!!

[uponit7771]

63. Obama is secretly trading dirivatives dammit!!!

[HighContext]

65. Obama = a Street.

...named Wall.

[TheWraith]

2. Give it time, I'm sure the Ron Paul people there will bring some some.

And if they don't, the FireDogLake crowd will fill the gap. :eyes:

Although to answer your question seriously... perhaps the people protesting, unlike some in the blogosphere, don't view Obama as either the personification of all the world's ills, or a wizard who COULD fix things but chooses not to. Maybe they recognize that there's a lot of things in the world which really have nothing to do with the White House.

[leftstreet]

4. So they don't understand anything about the Obama Admin's economic appointments?

They're Wall Street insiders

[TheWraith]

8. Right, except of course, they're not.

But don't let reality get in the way of your screed, just because Geithner has never actually worked at a Wall Street investment bank in any capacity, and Summers' only job on Wall Street was two years, part time.

[tblue]

11. Geithner earned millions of $$$$ from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and other Wall St

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abo3Zo0ifzJg

But don't let reality get in the way of your screed.

[TheWraith]

16. You know that link doesn't back up your assertion, right?

Geithner never earned a dime working for a Wall Street investment bank. Because he never worked for one.

By the way, how is it that you instantly trust Bloomberg News' spin on the Democratic administration, but DIStrust them on their spin of the Occupy Wall Street protests? Are they only a propaganda outlet when they disagree with your preconceived notions?

[jpgray]

19. In what universe is the NY Fed President not a Wall Street insider?

I'm curious to hear your answer. What's your take on Summers's grand speaking tour of investment banks? His work at hedge fund D.E. Shaw? Not Wall Street enough for you? Presumably Rubin qualifies, at least, no? On whose advice do you suppose so many Hamilton Project alums and other Rubin protegees were hired by Obama (Gensler, Orszag, Geithner, Summers, Brainard, etc.)?

[TheWraith]

21. Again: Geithner never worked at a Wall Street investment bank.

Summers did two years at one, part time. Orszag didn't get a job with a bank until after he left the Obama administration. Gensler was one of the lead advisors on creating Sarbanes-Oxley, which tightened regulation of public companies.

Your conspiracy theory is amusing, but unsubstantiated.

[tblue]

20. Bloomberg was a Dem, then a Repub and now who knows?

He's not an idealogue.

How Wall Street bought Tim Geithner
"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner earned millions of dollars from Goldman Sachs Group (GS), Citigroup (C), and other Wall Street financial powerhouses."
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/14/how-wall-street-bought-tim-geithner/?icid=sphere_copyright

Tim Geithner Is A Disgrace (By Eliot Spitzer)
http://ir-ub.mathcs.emory.edu:8100/http/dailybail.com/home/tim-geithner-is-a-disgrace-by-eliot-spitzer.html


Sorry, I don't have the time or energy to cut and paste and format these articles at this late hour. Read them or don't. I really don't care.

If your argument is that Obama is not beholden to Wall Street because Tim Geithner had aides who benefited investments, it doesn't convince me. But you probably don't care what I think either.

Don't mean any snark, I am just out of juice! Should have been in bed 2 hours ago.

Good night!

[TheWraith]

22. Make no mistake, Bloomberg is a Republican.

Bloomberg talks a good game about socially liberal values, like gay marriage, then turns around and donates huge amounts of money to anti-gay Republican State Senate candidates who attempt to block gay marriage. Or he voices support for Park 51, then he has the NYPD spying on all Muslims as potential terrorists. Or he goes out and bribes the City Council to overturn the term limits law the voters have approved THREE TIMES in order for Bloomberg to buy another term as Mayor, dropping $150 million on the race.

Not to mention, in NY politics Bloomberg is FAMOUS for repeatedly throwing temper tantrums over the fact that New York's junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, was not approved and selected by him and his fellow ultra-wealthy friends, to the extent of him continuously trying to find a candidate to finance to oust her from that seat with big Wall Street money behind them.

Make no mistake, Bloomberg is a classic big-money Republican. And he is loyal to that, and only that. He is the human personification of the corrosive effect of money on politics.

[tblue]

34. Not really!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2046469

[TheWraith]

59. Yes, really. One article doesn't overcome all the things I listed.

Mike Bloomberg is a Republican asshole. If you don't believe that, it's your problem, but it's the truth.

[tblue]

35. Bloomberg Markets magazine dropped a bombshell with 14-page investigation of Koch Ind

"allegations of foreign bribery, environmental negligence and price-fixing."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/10/koch-brothers-revelations-have-staying-power/43234/

[HighContext]

67. Obama 'earned' $900k+ from Goldman Sacs.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM:POLITICS

This is our country.

Campaign Finance Reform!!!...it's a virtual pancea to our smorgasbord or ailments.

[girl gone mad]

25. You must be kidding.

Another Goldman executive named to key government post as its profits skyrocket

Apparently, the U.S. government didn’t have enough Goldman Sachs executives in key financial and regulatory positions, so the following happened this week:

A Goldman Sachs executive has been named the first chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division.

The market watchdog says Adam Storch, vice president in Goldman Sachs’ Business Intelligence Group, is assuming the new position of managing executive of the SEC division.

The move comes as the SEC revamps its enforcement efforts following the agency’s failure to uncover Bernard Madoff’s massive fraud scheme for nearly two decades despite numerous red flags.

(snip)

In October of last year, a Goldman Sachs Vice President, Neel Kashkari, was named by former Goldman CEO and then-Treasury Secretary Hank Pauslon to oversee the$700 billion TARP bailout. In January of this year, Tim Geithner hired a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, Mark Patterson, to be his top aide and Chief of Staff. In March, President Obama nominated Goldman Sachs executive Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates futures markets, even though (or ”because”) Gensler confessed to lax regulation during the Clinton administration over the very derivative instruments that caused the financial crisis. In April, Goldman hired as its top lobbyist Michael Paese, the top aide to Rep. Barney Frank on the House Financial Services Committee which Frank chairs.

According to ABC News in October, 2008, Goldman “spent more than $43 million dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions to cultivate friends and buy influence in Washington, D.C. since 1989″ and their “bankers have been the country’s top political campaign contributors this year.” “They are almost in a class by themselves,” said Sheila Krumholz, the executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics. As Michael Moore has been pointing out, Goldman was the number one source of funding for the Obama 2008 presidential campaign. The bailout of AIG — which resulted in massive federal government monies to Goldman — was engineered at a meeting between Paulson, Geithner and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Last year, Goldman paid top Obama economics adviser Larry Summers $135,000 for a one-day visit to Goldman.

Recently obtained calenders from Geithner reveal that “Goldman, Citi and JPMorgan can get Geithner on the phone several times a day if necessary, giving them an unmatched opportunity to influence policy” and “Geithner’s contacts with Blankfein alone outnumber his contacts with Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.” Documents obtained by The New York Times relating to Geithner’s work before becoming Treasury Secretary “show that he forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street’s giant financial institutions.”

http://politics.salon.com/2009/10/16/goldman_3/singleton

[Number23]

109. +1 billion

To every single point.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Amonester]

6. Obama and politicians in general need money for campaigning.

The 1% took/take advantage of that fact and they've been very happy to oblige.

It made/makes them Richer...

[tblue]

12. They don't give $millions to politicians just cuz they like 'em.

They want something in return for that investment, which is all it is.

[EFerrari]

14. Hush money.

[tblue]

15. Legislation & influence. You can buy a lot of that with the right $$$.

:puke:

[defendandprotect]

48. Think it's time for Dems to either STOP SELLING themselves or move aside ... !!!

It's a two-way street -- this isn't only about Citizens' United and corporations --

the other side of the street is that our candidates/elected officials have been

willing to betray us and SELL THEMSELVES TO CORPORATIONS!!

[willyr9]

7. Why No Anti-Obama signs

It could be because like myself, many aren't anti-Obama. As a matter of fact, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the living quarters at the White House. Put yourself in his place. Would you come out publicly for the protests right now with 2012 coming up? I'd wager that if our president was still a community organizer, he'd be out there with OccupyChicago or perhaps even helping organize. All he needs is to give the far right more ammunition. It's only my opinion and I could be wrong, but I think his heart is in the right place. Do what you can where you are. If your city isn't in this video, is there something you can do to put it there? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V00EFQxU7eg

[tblue]

10. He didn't do anything like that in Chicago

so I sure as heck don't expect to see him out there now. That is not his MO.

I am not sure whether I think our president should show up there or not. In a perfect world, yes. But if his election is the highest priority, then no.

If he's a man truly of the people, he'll show up there, but you and I both know he won't.

[Itchinjim]

17. 231...

[JDPriestly]

9. Because the real problems are way beyond Obama.

He is part of the problem, but even he loses the next election, the bankster/corporate machine will get someone just like him. He, like every president since Gerald Ford, is just a figurehead for Wall Street and the huge corporations.

[tblue]

13. Truer words were never said.

Sad, huh???

[deutsey]

31. +1

[leftstreet]

33. I don't disagree with you, But since when did protesters become so enlightened?

A political protest that doesn't target a politician is rather unprecedented

[salin]

41. This group (at least the NYC group) are highly disciplined, tech savvy

and exceptionally dedicated to being heard. I have been watching through live feed for more than a week. Was tuned in when things went nuts on the bridge. As a whole those on the bridge were 'Grace Under Fire'. I think we are seeing something completely new.

[salin]

40. Ding, Ding, Ding!

[Itchinjim]

18. 232...

[murielm99]

23. What are you counting?

[ixion]

27. I think that's a marker of some kind, not a count.

I've seen this poster do it before.

A quick search reveals it's meaning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7620987

[HughBeaumont]

28. But it's a consecutive count . . .

. . . So I'm guessing it's the amount of anti-Obama posts the poster sees.

[ixion]

32. hmmm... perhaps, however

I saw this poster flag one of my posts with the same number.

[Gold Metal Flake]

52. Do a search and you will see that is exactly what it is.

I anticipate a very important lecture from this poster after some specific time period has passed. I see it differently. I see it as what is now over two hundred call outs.

[HughBeaumont]

87. Isn't that kind of like borderline stalking?

Assuming said poster knows which regulars to go after, that is?

:scared:

[Gold Metal Flake]

93. I think it will be useful for a mass call-out due any day now. Markers, in a way.

Do discuss any concerns you might have with those that do for the forum.

[SidDithers]

69. ...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[girl gone mad]

24. They have a larger goal..

change the game, not just the players.

[ixion]

26. because it isn't about Obama, directly...

He is incidental. I agree he is part of the problem, but the banksters must be dealt with first, because they're the ones controlling him.

[HughBeaumont]

29. Likely because they recognize the same things many of us do . . .

. . . that the unbridled capitalist cancer goes beyond 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at this point.

Plus, why feed Republicans or Paulites material?

[eilen]

30. Because this isn't an electoral campaign rally

there should not be signs for or against any political candidate. The problem is the system has failed. Elections today are basically just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for the 99%.

[WI_DEM]

36. Well maybe you should make a sign and go to NY and then there will be one.

[NorthCarolina]

37. ...

[SwampG8r]

38. he has rendered himself irrelevant

[leftstreet]

42. That would certainly be unprecedented

Although it could explain why politicians must raise gazillion$ to get elected

[SwampG8r]

115. in the context of this protest he has waited so long to

weigh in that he has lost any relevence he may have had
he will get a chance to have his say on the 6th in DC
i would hope he could speak to financial justice
i was short in my previous answer

[deaniac21]

39. The same reason that war protests stopped.

[leftstreet]

43. The war protests stopped when Bush/Cheney and the GOP got replaced n/t

[deaniac21]

44. The wars sure didn't. We even added another one.

[defendandprotect]

49. 80% of the public want an end to the wars -- and think 2010 was also about that and Obama ...

not just Obama's betrayal on universal health care -- but certainly about the

wars -- !!!

[DireStrike]

56. I would say that the war protests stopped because they didn't work.

Nobody cares if half a million people want to walk down a parade route on a weekend, a couple times a year, nicely following a permit and staying inside their free speech zones.


But if 1000 kids and activists start blocking traffic, suddenly everybody wakes up. Protest doesn't do shit unless you're causing problems for those in power.

[Ikonoklast]

45. No DU'ers there?

PBO didn't crash the economy.

The OWS people know who to blame, they aren't stupid.

[AtomicKitten]

55. +1

[Number23]

110. Thank you

This is probably the fifth post I've seen today from folks "wondering" either why Obama hasn't endorsed the OWS or why the protestors aren't aiming their lasers at the president.

Because this is what DU does all day, every day so surely the rest of the world, or at least the liberal world, must feel the same way, right??? :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[defendandprotect]

47. Good question .... the fight is against the RW corporatists/fascists ---

and those aiding and abetting them!!

[Shagbark Hickory]

50. +! I've been wondering why there doesn't appear to be any RWers there. Aren't they the ones that are

supposed to be upset with all the policies of this administration?

[leftstreet]

51. Well, if this is 'beyond politics' maybe the RWers are there in solidarity?

That would surely be too much for the M$M to cope with and we'd never hear about it

Politicians couldn't handle it either. How could they raise campaign $$?

[Shagbark Hickory]

53. Or at least it's an excuse to go hold up signs with racist messages on them.

It seems to be exclusively liberals though. :shrug:
Why is the RW so satisfied all of a sudden?

[DireStrike]

61. I think the Ron Paul libertarian factions count as RW, but they aren't traditional RWers.

They are a minority though.

It's so obvious that corporations control the government that even small-government conservatives want them out. Lots of these people are young and may eventually become reformists, or go even further left, now that they're paying attention.


The main body of traditional RWers are complete puppets, whether they realize it or not. They march in lockstep. Most of them don't do any more activism than forwarding emails filled with grammar and spelling errors. The only time they are mobilized is when the word comes down from on high. And the RW power brokers do not control this protest, and so want no part of it.

[FrenchieCat]

70. Ron Paul supports less regulation and a "Free Market" economy. They shouldn't be at these Protests.

And if they are, then they are hypocrites.

At least the Obama administration believes and support regulations
especially in reference to banking, even if some don't believe that
what was passed was enough, at least it wasn't going in the other direction.

And perhaps these young folks are smarter than folks understand.
Perhaps they are not occupying Wall Street to cut off their noses.

[DireStrike]

99. The line I usually get when I ask them is something like

"In a truly free market you wouldn't have government helping out some corporations at the expense of others".

I agree, this quickly leads to an ideological blind alley. I think if these people stick around, many will not be able to maintain their libertarianism. It's a confusing time, and people are jumping all over the ideological spectrum as they figure things out.

[DireStrike]

54. The President really isn't all that important.

Most folks there recognize this as a systemic crisis. It doesn't make sense to single out anybody.

This is one reason it's good to have Bush gone. It was so easy, and so much fun to hate on him. But it didn't accomplish anything.


I guess they also don't want to alienate Obama supporters who haven't woken up yet?

[leftstreet]

57. How quickly things have changed

[DireStrike]

58. You're telling me.

I got caught up in it too. The utter ineffectiveness of "Obama" has disillusioned a lot of people.

[Ikonoklast]

60. Only the bitter few who believe in magic.

The vast majority know better.

But, get that fear, uncertainty, and doubt out there!

[DireStrike]

62. I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

A lot of people put their hope and trust in Obama, and now feel betrayed. Are you saying that isn't the case?

It's a good thing, though it may not look it. For me, Obama was the first politician I've felt could actually get anything done. Looking back I see I was wrong to expect that as well, given his disposition. But anyway the point is that we have much more power than the 536 elected federal reps, president included. Alone, we have little, but together we are much stronger. Provided we can bring that power to bear....

The occupations are a fantastic first step towards empowering the jaded citizenry of this country.

[Ikonoklast]

64. You need to understand how this government works.

The president is not a King, and cannot rule by fiat.

Like it or not, PBO is only one part of the government, and is constrained by that reality.

[DireStrike]

66. Exactly my point.

We are never going to get a better setup than 60 D senators, a charismatic president with massive public support, and the house as well. The entire government edifice is powerless to fix society, let alone the president. Electoral politics are a waste of energy.

Sure I'll keep voting, because the Dems are slightly less likely to throw oppressed minority groups under the bus (or to appoint supreme court justices who'll do so.) But real change has to come from elsewhere.

[FrenchieCat]

72. Electoral Politics are not a waste of energy.....

it is part and parcel in a democractic society.

Are you trying to get us not to vote,
because if so, I disagree with your assessment.

It will take all hands on deck....and if you believe that
somehow a revolution will solve all problems, you are incorrect a
and quite naive.

[leftstreet]

73. At least half the eligible voters in this country clearly agree

They still have enough faith in the electoral system to get out there and engage

That's why it's surprising any people disappointed with Obama (on the right or left) aren't visible in these protests. They've been loud enough in the media, etc.

[FrenchieCat]

76. Why would the Right be at these protests?

When the Protests are about more government, not less.

In addition, the many on the Left are smart enough to understand
that piling onto this President will not give them what they are
protesting for. Perhaps they are smarter than folks like you give them
credit for.

Perhaps they see that all of the below, Pres. Obama has tried to forge progress on,
while they also understand that Republicans are the major cause of these problems
to begin with much more than anyone else.

---------------------------------------

People will take a picture of themselves with a sign. The sign will describe a problem that the person is going through, such as:

"I am a student with $25,000 in debt."

"I am a homeowner who just got foreclosed upon."

"I am someone with thousands in medical bills and no insurance."

After below that, a single line:

"I am the 99 percent."
http://occupywallst.org/article/99Percent/

[leftstreet]

80. Plenty of people on the 'right' protested the bank bailouts in 2008-9

:shrug:

This is about Wall Street and corporate greed, right?

[FrenchieCat]

82. No, people on the Right DID NOT protest the Bank Bailouts....

Which occurred in 2008.....
They just weren't there, and I'm not sure why you think they were. :shrug:

The Tea Party phenomenon, in stark contrast to the Wall Street protest, was brazenly built-up and slickly marketed by the corporate media itself. It’s debut starred Wall Street media figure Rick Santelli, who initiated a rant on the corporate media channel he worked for, CNBC.

The rant he became famous for encouraged a protest centered around the fact that the Obama Administration had dared propose measures offering a lifeline to help ordinary citizens on Main Street, who were losing their homes due to the mortgage financial meltdown.

Although some mistook the Tea Party rant as a call to protest the bank bailouts (which occurred in 2008), that was never its intent, and Santelli made that clear at time.
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQQfzXQ6UjA&feature=related

Full story here: http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2011/09/25/what-the-media-is-doing-to-the-wall-st-protest-is-what-they-are-paid-to-do/

[leftstreet]

83. Uh, yes they did. This was before the dumb Tea Party media creation

You know, a growing movement gets co opted...

:scared:

[FrenchieCat]

86. No, they didn't....That was not the Right protesting.

And I see that perhaps you'd like to co opt this growing movement
to be against Pres. Obama. I'm grateful that most are not
that obsessive, and appear to be quite smart in their approach.
It's about the failures of our system going way back....
it's not about helping elect Republicans by being stupid and myopic.

[leftstreet]

90. Aren't people protesting to get Wall Street out of the gvt? How is that not political?

How does that not show faith in government function?

But as for me trying to 'coopt this growing movement' - darlin I think it might be too late

[FrenchieCat]

92. You are the one sniffing for Anti-Obama signs, not me.....

This is fury over Corporate America, and a push for more jobs, more regulation, more taxes on the wealthy, and more compassion for Americans struggling.

And no, people are protesting to get more government to reign in corporations, not less.

[leftstreet]

101. And I can't tell you relieved I am not to find any. This truly reflects his high approval ratings

nice try

:eyes:

If you don't have a healthy fear of the co option of any organizing of the working classes, you haven't been paying attention

[DireStrike]

95. They did actually. The anger from bank bailouts on the right was the nucleus around which the tea

party was formed. All that rightful anger was masterfully channeled into a worthless corporate-media sponsored fake party.

[FrenchieCat]

96. No, you are incorrect......

Show me the Tea Party protest PRIOR to Santelli's rant a month after the President was inaugurated,
in where he asked people to protest the fact that they might have to pay for their neighbor's poor decision.

Show me a protest prior to THIS rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQQfzXQ6UjA&feature=related

Headline the next day....
Friday, 20 Feb 2009
Should America Join Santelli's "Tea Party" Protesting Mortgage Relief?

Rick Santelli's "rant of the year" has touched a nerve with those who feel the government is promoting "bad behavior" when it tries to help 9 million U.S. families avoid foreclosure.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29299044/Should_America_Join_Santelli_s_Tea_Party_Protesting_Mortgage_Relief

SHOW ME THE RIGHT THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

The Right were always protesting mortgage relief, not bank bail outs.....
They allowed the media to get dumbasses to believe they were protesting
bank bailouts....but they never were. And this started less than a month
after this President was inaugurated.....so please, stop the propaganda....

ENOUGH!

[DireStrike]

97. It's difficult to find articles that directly reference bipartisan anger in that timeframe

Nonetheless, there were plenty of them. EVERYONE was against the bank bailouts. Over the rest of the year, the right channeled this into the idea of it being the fault of people who took out "liars loans" and filled the entire CDO trade with bad mortgages. That was the spin they put on it to misdirect people. Capitalism: A love story references the bipartisan anger pretty well when it talks about the bailouts being passed.

By the time of Santelli's rant, the right had gotten its Wurlitzer spinning overdrive to convince everyone that poor people seeking government handouts caused the crisis (also conveniently code for "black people".) Though the Tea Party became codified at this point, and was always composed of right-wingers, much of the anger and fear that gave it impetus came from the bank bailouts. I can't really prove it better than that. If you try to google it, you'll see a plethora of articles from dubious sources. I'm pretty confident that the right search terms would bring out good articles, because that's how I remember it being. I'll just have to pit my recollection against your large, bold font.

Can you explain why this is a big deal? It seems to be a kind of academic point.

[FrenchieCat]

100. "I can't really prove it....."

It's a big deal because what you stated was not the truth.
The Tea Party aren't about anything the OWS is about.....
The Tea Party is who has caused much of our problems,
bY being loud and shown on television so much as folks with a beef,
who don't want the rich taxed, who want Corporations to run wild,
Who don't want the US to invest in our people,
who care more about protecting the tax loopholes for the wealthy
than about the struggle of the poor and the middle class,
and who oppose every single one of the President's effort to
provide relief to the American people.....

they are the fucked up people
currently in charge of the House of Representatives.

THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.

By the time of Santelli's Rant? Hell, he birthed that mean spirited movement in his own way...
with help and direction from the top, I'm sure.

First national protests

On February 19, 2009,<52> in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CNBC Business News editor Rick Santelli criticized the government plan to refinance mortgages, which had just been announced the day before. He said that those plans were "promoting bad behavior"<53> by "subsidizing losers' mortgages". He suggested holding a tea party for traders to gather and dump the derivatives in the Chicago River on July 1.<54><55><56> A number of the floor traders around him cheered on his proposal, to the amusement of the hosts in the studio. Santelli's "rant" became a viral video after being featured on the Drudge Report.<57>

Overnight, websites such as ChicagoTeaParty.com (registered in August 2008 by Chicagoan Zack Christenson, radio producer for conservative talk show host Milt Rosenberg,) were live within 12 hours.<58> About 10 hours after Santelli's remarks, reTeaParty.com was bought to coordinate Tea Parties scheduled for Independence Day and, as of March 4, was reported to be receiving 11,000 visitors a day.<58>

According to The New Yorker writer Ben McGrath<52> and New York Times reporter Kate Zernike,<42> this is where the movement was first inspired to coalesce under the collective banner of "Tea Party". By the next day, guests on Fox News had already begun to mention this new "Tea Party".<59>

As reported by The Huffington Post, a Facebook page was developed on February 20 calling for Tea Party protests across the country.<60> Soon, the "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" protest was coordinated across over 40 different cities for February 27, 2009, thus establishing the first national modern Tea Party protest.<61><62> The movement has been supported nationally by at least 12 prominent individuals and their associated organizations.<63>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

[DireStrike]

102. There's a misunderstanding here

leftstreet said, and I confirmed, that there were right-wingers among those angry about the bailouts. I was conflating "anger" and "protest". I don't know that any right-wingers or tea partiers protested the bailouts, just that they were angry.

Almost nothing good can be said about the tea party. The point we're making is that many of the rank and file swallowed the lies of their leaders, to explain the crisis that wall street had caused, and they were angry about. This served to redirect the anger to their traditional scapegoats (blacks, immigrants, people sponging off the system, government agencies and government in general, etc...)

[FrenchieCat]

103. You stated....

"The anger from bank bailouts on the right was the nucleus around which the tea
party was formed."

It's fine to clean it up after being called out. That's good of you to do.
Thanks! :hi:

[DireStrike]

105. That statement

Perhaps nucleus is a bad word. I still stand behind the general sentiment, though.

Here is my view again of how, and of what, the tea party was formed:

In 2008 the economy crashed. It was clear that the banks were about to raid the treasury. For a short time, citizens united in outrage were able to hold it off. Congress waited for the heat to die down and then passed it anyway. The spin had started about how "well nobody likes it, but we have to or we're DOOMED!"

I guess the plan was that everyone would go back to sleep once it was too late, but the anger remained. The left was mollified a bit with the taste of victory as Obama came into office. The right, on the other hand, was only getting angrier. The opportunity was taken to spin a tale about the "real causes" of the bailouts and economic crash. Basically, massive anger at the bailouts, (and some other things) + right wingers = tea party. Without the bailout rage, I think they would have just remained regular hateful Republicans. But their vitriol was beginning to be directed against unsuitable targets, and had to be fixed with some sort of new movement.


People need to have less personal attachment to their statements. It also helps to realize there is no shame in making mistakes. An argument is not a contest, but a search for understanding. It's hard, especially on the internet, to remember... but it has to be done.:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

106. I disagree.....

The anger from the teabaggers have been aimed at Pres. Obama from the time of their first protest in February of 2009, and has been against anything and everything that Pres. Obama has done since.

The Tea Party have never expressed anger over the Republican's role in the meltdown, which was most significant, and why teabaggers remain card carrying Republicans to the extreme. So I say horseshit with your "rationalization". I'm not buying what you are selling.

[DireStrike]

107. Fair enough.

Thanks for discussing it. I can't argue any better at this point. Maybe I'll get back to you sometime.

[HughBeaumont]

88. The problem is the lack of progressives in Congress. Many Ds are really Rs.

[bvar22]

111. ?

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity with The 99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TBF]

68. Liberals still see President Obama as less scary than myriad Opposers -

they want him to win this election. They also want systemic change.

I dunno, maybe they didn't have Psychology 101 and have no idea what cognitive dissonance means? :shrug:

I expect that if POTUS loses in 2012, the protests will ramp up significantly.

[librechik]

71. I'd pony up for a Geitner Must Go! sign

if somebody would carry it for me...

[Eric J in MN]

74. I saw an anti-Obama sign being carried by a protester

...in a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge.

[leftstreet]

75. Was that on the tv, internet?

[FrenchieCat]

77. I saw Ron Paul 2012 signs as well.

Excited yet? :shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

78. on the internet.

Someone was holding a sign saying "Obama sold us out" or something like that.

[FrenchieCat]

89. Cartwheels!

Must have been that student who got a larger pell grant and is currently on his parent's insurance plan
that was carrying that sign...
or perhaps a member of DU that post non-stop about how one man was supposed to do it all,
while we sat on the Internet waiting while calling him names day in, day out.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

79. This protest isn't about individual politics.

It's about the culture of corruption, the human rights violations that
both parties have governed over. They are not so naive as to believe
these issues originated with Obama or that he will do anything thing
to change the status quo.

I doubt is many there are even inclined to vote for change anymore.

[leftstreet]

81. A very interesting point

'I doubt is many there are even inclined to vote for change anymore.'

You could on to something there

[Whisp]

84. those be the ones that didn't hear the President say, and many times...

change is not easy, it's not fast. etc etc

if anyone really things that Obama should have fixed all of the fuckups of the last tons of years, by now, they must be 2 years old and can't vote anway.

[FrenchieCat]

85. Obama has already changed the status quo in many ways.....

perhaps not enough for some, but to state he hasn't changed anything,
is disinformation, and won't help anyone either now or in 2012.

[sabrina 1]

91. Because it is not about partisan politics, it is about a broken system

that will take a lot of time to fix and as it is being fixed, politicians who are not serving the people will hopefully fall by the wayside as a natural consequence. For now, it has been clear that is about THE PEOPLE and everything is done by consensus. There should be no partisan politics attached to it.

The System is the problem. Politicians either choose to or end up having no choice regarding being a part of that system. Once the system is fixed, we will get better representation. To focus on politicians and who hates who etc. has divided this country and made any mass action against the broken system impossible. Now, that is changing, people are sick of the deliberate divisions when if you look at polls on speciific issues, they cross party lines once you get Fox et al, the propaganda machines whose goal has been to focus people on personality politics rather than real issues, out of the picture.

A new media is also being created. No point in trying to fix the current one until we get a Congress in place who will restore some fairness regarding who owns the media. This is one of the biggest problems right now.

But the old, myopic, partisan bickering over politics is already feeling old. It was tolerated for far too long and is actually now beginning to fade in people's minds as they focus on a much bigger picture.

[ThomWV]

94. Because when it comes to taking care of the country Obama has made himself irrelevant.

What's he got to do with it? From the donations he has accepted you'd have to think he's more a part of the problem than the solution.

[Puregonzo1188]

98. I saw an Obama is a War Criminal sign in one of the pics. Thought to be fair the protestors aren't

really attacking individual politicians, but more the system as such.

[KurtNYC]

104. OWS is about a process; participatory democracy

by definition a horizontal organization doesn't coalesce for or against other people but rather for or against ideas and changes.

If you want to see anti-Obama stuff try the LaRouche tables.

[fascisthunter]

108. Obama isn't the issue

[bvar22]

112. Because...

When the Working Class & The Poor realize WE have more in common with each other
than we have in common with the Rich Elite Class Leadership of BOTH Political Parties,
THEN we can have some change.

Find the Common Ground.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity with The 99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[mmonk]

113. This protest is directed at those that control the government.

[eridani]

114. Because the corrupt system is a whole lot bigger than Obama?

Just sayin'.