From:   Jon Good <>
Sent time:   Friday, October 14, 2011 2:20:28 PM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] MoveOn Execs Now Official Spokespeople For OWS, According to MSM Execs

If you're right, Micah, then we must keep ahead of them.  Who is running  Who's scheduling the topics for discussion at the GA?  PLEASE email me if you know the answers to these questions.

I would like to propose a resolution and statement TONIGHT.  It is short.  It is simple.  It defines us.  The text would read:

"The occupation acknowledges that the problems we face cannot be solved by either the Democratic or the Republican parties.  Both parties are controlled and corrupted by Wall Street."

Please help get this passed and released if you think it's a good idea.



On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Micah White <> wrote:
Further, let me point out that these orgs (MoveOn especially) are working on a local level to co-opt as well as on a national level.  Locally, they are approaching occupy movements and trying to channel them into the "Rebuild the dream" movement.  It would be very helpful if the NY #OWS would advise the other occupations to be careful.

Otherwise we're going to wake up and 50% of the occupy movement is marching to MoveOn's drum beat.


On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Bailey McCann <> wrote:
Don't forget these orgs also just need money to function which is why it's beneficial for them to co-opt not only is it about electing corporate sponsored pols but padding the budgets of these orgs. Have to be mindful of how "support" plays out on all levels.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 14, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Micah White <> wrote:

I agree with David.  These people want to "ride the wave" of this movement and channel it into democratic party politics. #OWS started as a movement to end the monied corruption of democracy. Being aligned with the democrats will not only be hypocritical but it will ultimately be the kiss of death.

We are a revolutionary movement not an electioneering campaign.  Do not be naive: they have a whole strategy lined out as to how to turn #OWS into a reelection bid for corporate-funded politicians.


On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:49 PM, David DeGraw <> wrote:
i hear you guys, move on has been helpful, we need to be open to other orgs, i get all that, but dangerous to ignore Dem / hierarchical co-option, imo

On 10/14/2011 3:32 PM, Jon Good wrote:
Is there anybody who has a link to any high-ups in MoveOn who can firmly (but nicely!) remind them that the entire occupation's survival depends on them not bringing partisan politics into this.  Moreover, remind them that because they are so privileged their access to media, it's their obligation to pass the mic over to others who are not.

As for the fact that they ignored us in the past, it was the past.  This is now.  Things are different.  It's shitty that the big guns weren't joining until we looked like we actually can succeed in changing things, but it's awesome that people can change their minds.  Our movement has been wronged infinitely more by the finance industry, the federal government, and the NYPD than by MoveOn not supporting us in the past.  Don't let it get to us.



On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Charles Lenchner <> wrote:
1. One of the reasons Chris Bowers' post on DailyKos was so helpful is that OWS and OccupyTogether had done a poor job of making it easy to find and join occupations around the country. That post, which has been liked/shared/tweeted more than 40k times and has appeared on countless other media, was a tremendous service at a time when OWS didn't have it's own 'official' web presence. While I've heard that is such a thing, I've also heard that the official site lies in the future, and that 'there is no can there be an official site' because of how OWS is organized.
2. Such an approach to the website is mirrored by the general attitude towards binding decisions and hierarchy. No one has the authority to say 'this is official, this is inside, that is outside.' Only GA decisions can do that, and if the past is a guide, the GA is openly resisting efforts to be explicitly for or against any other entity, candidate or political effort.
3. On those ground, as long as these people are identified as MoveOn, then the MSM is just doing what it should do: locate credible, reputable spokespeople who can give insight on current events. It's likely that these MoveOn people are known personally to the producers, and with the recent support (with bodies!) given by MoveOn to the OWS, MoveOn is defacto in the same position as any other group whose members are involved in OWS. Which is to say: present, accounted for, and not entitled to represent themselves AS the movement, but only as part of the movement. 
4. If there is a quote showing that a MoveOn spokesperson claimed to represent the GA, I'd like to see it.
5. The MSM need not do anything special to help the 99% look like it belongs on the Dem side of the aisle. It is enough that we live in a two party political system. I can only sympathize with the Paulites who have shown real dedication in supporting OWS. Their presence might not last, but it must be incredibly frustrating to be seen as supporting something that is de-facto on the left, liberal side of the political divide, where you might find elected Democrats like Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, but not any Tea Party loving Republicans. Democracy For America, the DCCC, Progressive Democrats of America aren't joining the OWS bandwagon because of some political error; it's because this movement includes many Democrats and overlaps with many of the forces on the left side of the Democratic Party (*cough* LABOR).
6. Want the MSM to give more deference to a clear OWS voice? No problem. Create a diverse cadre of spokespeople trained to appear on television, stick to carefully thought out talking points while conforming to cable tv culture. Let them represent ONLY positions approved by the GA, and have the ability to say, explicitly, that they are speaking on behalf of OWS. This would take about two days of hard work. Ah, but who has the right to embark on such a project? Until then, expect the press to look for folks they know how to handle, be they MoveOn, Democrats, Naomi Klein, Van Jones or Michael Moore.


On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM, David DeGraw <> wrote:
top MoveOn leaders / executives are all over national television speaking for the movement.  Saying We, We, We, We and directing people to, which redirects to the DailyKos.

again, fully appreciate the help and support of MoveOn, but the MSM is clearly using them as the spokespeople for OWS.  I just had an off-record discussion w/ NBC executives who say that other news execs there plan to use them to divide the movement. This is an blatant attempt to fracture the 99% into a Democratic Party organization. The leadership of MoveON and the Daily Kos are Democratic Party operatives.  They do a lot of great work, but they are divide and conquer pawns.   For years they ignored Wall Street protests to keep complete focus on the Republicans, in favor of Goldman's Obama and Wall Street's Democratic leadership.

if anyone at Move On or Daily Kos would like to have a public debate about these comments, we invite it.

if MoveOn leaders / executives are going to keep going on National TV to speak for OWS, we need them to make a clear statement.

please urgently propose that statement or a plan to call them out in an effective way.

know there are some people who think any attempts at co-option will be unsuccessful, and there is some truth to that, but we can't let blatant co-option attempts continue w/out a response.  the longer we remain silent as people get on national tv claiming to speak for and lead the movement, the more damage will be done.