Sent time:   Friday, October 14, 2011 3:20:28 PM
Subject:   SPAM-LOW: Re: Re: [september17discuss] MoveOn Execs Now Official Spokespeople For OWS, According to MSM Execs

I like the statement (except for not having a website) and think it may be a good idea for the GA to endorse it (and post it on the official website ;)   ).

(But who is this ampedstatus and why are they co-opting us?  Partly kidding because I really don't know what iis is.)
On 10/14/11, David DeGraw<> wrote:
LOL, love it! hands in the air, fingers dancing - let's request MoveOnendorse that statement ;-)

here was our proposal:

On 10/14/2011 4:20 PM, Jon Good wrote:
If you're right, Micah, then wemust keep ahead of them.  Who is running  Who's schedulingthe topics for discussion at the GA?  PLEASE email me if you know theanswers to these questions.

I would like to propose aresolution and statement TONIGHT.  It is short.  It is simple.  Itdefines us.  The text would read:

"Theoccupation acknowledges that the problems we face cannot be solved byeither the Democratic or the Republican parties.  Both parties arecontrolled and corrupted by Wall Street."

Please help get this passed andreleased 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 alocal level to co-opt as well as on a national level.  Locally, theyare approaching occupy movements and trying to channel them into the"Rebuild the dream" movement.  It would be very helpful if the NY #OWSwould advise the other occupations to be careful.

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


On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, BaileyMcCann <>wrote:
Don't forget these orgs also just need money to functionwhich is why it's beneficial for them to co-opt not only is it aboutelecting corporate sponsored pols but padding the budgets of theseorgs. 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. #OWSstarted as a movement to end the monied corruption of democracy. Beingaligned with the democrats will not only be hypocritical but it willultimately be the kiss of death.

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


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

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

As for the fact that they ignored us in the past, itwas thepast.  This is now.  Things are different.  It's shitty that the bigguns weren't joining until we looked like we actually can succeed inchanging 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 usin the past.  Don't let it get to us.



On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:16 PM,CharlesLenchner <>wrote:
1.Oneof the reasons Chris Bowers' post on DailyKos was so helpful isthat OWS and OccupyTogether had done a poor job of making it easy tofind and join occupations around the country. That post, which has beenliked/shared/tweeted more than 40k times and has appeared on countlessother media, was a tremendous service at a time when OWS didn't haveit's own 'official' web presence. While I've heard that NYCGA.netissuch a thing, I've also heard that the official site lies in thefuture, and that 'there is no can there be an official site' because ofhow OWS is organized.
2. Such an approach to the website is mirrored bythe generalattitude towards binding decisions and hierarchy. No one has theauthority 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 isopenly resisting efforts to be explicitly for or against any otherentity, candidate or political effort.
3. On those ground, as long as these people areidentified asMoveOn, then the MSM is just doing what it should do: locate credible,reputable spokespeople who can give insight on current events. It'slikely 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 membersare involved in OWS. Which is to say: present, accounted for, and notentitled to represent themselves AS the movement, but only as part ofthe movement. 
4. If there is a quote showing that a MoveOnspokespersonclaimed to represent the GA, I'd like to see it.
5. The MSM need not do anything special to help the99% looklike it belongs on the Dem side of the aisle. It is enough that we livein a two party political system. I can only sympathize with thePaulites who have shown real dedication in supporting OWS. Theirpresence might not last, but it must be incredibly frustrating to beseen as supporting something that is de-facto on the left, liberal sideof the political divide, where you might find elected Democrats likeBarbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, but not any Tea Party loving Republicans.Democracy For America, the DCCC, Progressive Democrats of Americaaren't joining the OWS bandwagon because of some political error; it'sbecause this movement includes many Democrats and overlaps with many ofthe forces on the left side of the Democratic Party (*cough* LABOR).
6. Want the MSM to give more deference to a clearOWS voice?No problem. Create a diverse cadre of spokespeople trained to appear ontelevision, stick to carefully thought out talking points whileconforming to cable tv culture. Let them represent ONLY positionsapproved by the GA, and have the ability to say, explicitly, that theyare speaking on behalf of OWS. This would take about two days of hardwork. Ah, but who has the right to embark on such a project? Untilthen, expect the press to look for folks they know how to handle, bethey MoveOn, Democrats, Naomi Klein, Van Jones or Michael Moore.


On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM,DavidDeGraw <>wrote:
topMoveOn leaders / executives are all over national televisionspeaking for the movement.  Saying We, We, We, We and directing peopleto, which redirects to theDailyKos.

again, fully appreciate the help and support of MoveOn, but the MSM isclearly using them as the spokespeople for OWS.  I just had anoff-record discussion w/ NBC executives who say that other news execsthere plan to use them to divide the movement. This is an blatantattempt to fracture the 99% into a Democratic Party organization. Theleadership 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 onthe Republicans, in favor of Goldman's Obama and Wall Street'sDemocratic leadership.

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

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

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

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