From:   Justine <>
Sent time:   Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:15:42 AM
Subject:   Re: Re: [september17discuss] MoveOn Execs Now Official Spokespeople For OWS, According to MSM Execs

Jon, as freakin' awesome as it would be to see bell hooks or Angela Davis in the oval office, seriously supporting a political candidate is something will never do.  I understand and respect where you're coming from but I don't think we should go out of our way to leave such a possibility on the table.

Also thank you for your edits :)  I'm an engineer by trade so writing isn't my strong suit.  Perhaps "two parties" could be changed to something like "political establishment".

I'd also like to bring to everyone's attention some suggested verbiage Occupy Together sent me:

Ella's suggestion: This has, is, and always will be a movement of the
people. As the 99% we shall not allow this growing movement to be
co-opted by any one voice, organization or political party. This is
beyond any one group, or individual. This movement is about the
overwhelming majority coming together no matter their differences in
background or beliefs to stand up to a minority that has been allowed
to become too powerful.
an addition to consider: We cannot be bought out, we have moved beyond
submission through eloquent speeches, we will create the change that
the world needs, and today we know that we are not singular voice, we
stand together.

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Jon Good <> wrote:
I agree with most of this, but I worry that "therefore the occupy movement will never endorse any politician" is, at this point, unnecessarily broad.  By participating in a growing movement that has the potential to actually make change to the way the system is run, we're all becoming politicians (sort of). But saying we'll never endorse any politician closes a few possibilities to us (for example, if the world became so awesome that a bell hooks/Angela Davis presidential ticket could win). I would like to amend the thing to this:

The problems we face cannot be solved by the Democratic or the
Republican parties. Both parties are bought and corrupted by Wall
Street, and we must never allow them to divide us. *We are the 99%*,
not just the 25% who vote Republican, not just the 25% who vote
Democrat. We're much bigger than that. Therefore the Occupy
Movement does not endorse the two parties or their candidates. 
They are the 1%, and we don't need them to build a better world.

I'm an editor and I enjoy practicing my craft, so I nudged the wording and punctuation around a little, too.  I also changed "controlled" to "bought", because it's an accurate description of the means by which the parties are controlled.



On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Justine <> wrote:
Winter, I can assure you can the group running is as far left as left goes, or post-left, or whatever the heck you want to call it :P  And to be honest, I don't like the "American Dream" nonsense either.  This is part of Patrick's PR strategy.  He thinks he can make it work to our ends so for the time being we've been warily deferential to this particular judgement.

Anyway we've listened to what you've all had to say in this thread and we're thinking of putting this statement, (or something similar) on the website:

The problems we face cannot be solved by either the Democratic or the
Republican parties. Both parties are controlled and corrupted by Wall
Street and we must never allow them to divide us. This is because *we
are the 99%*, not just the 25% that votes republican, not just the 25%
that votes democrat—we're much bigger than that. Therefore the Occupy
Movement will never endorse any politician. They are the 1% and we
don't need them to build a better world.


On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Winter Siroco <> wrote:
I am more concerned about the limited ability of raising our voices than the fear of co-option and I do not mean on the street, where it is a pleasure to be rounded by that many spirited people breaking their voices everyday.    

I have not heard any reason against having an online voice directly responding to the people at Liberty Plaza either and I am not  not holding my breath because NYCGA  and particularly are independent groups that may or obviously will not answer your question, Jem. Jon Good, do not hold your breath for your questions either. These groups may be very small and/or lazy,  which has an advantage, it would keep them from being co-opted.  But then again, the reduced functionality of articulating, or better said, amplifying very much needed revolutionary voices above those of watered down reformists. 

With 300.000 visitors a day is in a great position to help to raise marginalized discourse, but these voices can not even get to through the backdoor, or perhaps the apparently small group is less "radical" than I wish. I have read the infamous "American Dream" sentence in instead of the  "American Delusion". Even common sense sounds radical during these days of conformism and resignation, and we were so thirsty that we are prone to see mirages. So, those who just turned off their TV sets today will  most likely end up being exposed to a lukewarm version of radical changes some of us would like them to hear, instead to the truly transformative discourse that we mostly talk to each other, converts.

Mainstream press, is in crisis. It is a content a content and credibility crisis of their own making, and we should provide the alternative too. 

So what is the solution. It would help to create a blog that would redirect the readers to the enormous amount of great articles and discourse that is being generated out there by people recently awaken and those who have been loosing their sleep for many years now, not necessarily celebrities. The blog should have some bone and ambition, and  it should be linked to and NYCGA.
Of course, substantiation will redefine the economically-bound 99% into real subgroups that will explore alternative strategies and confront problems beyond the economic realm. The alternative seems transient mobilization without long-lasting and deep political transformation. 

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:53 PM, <> wrote:
There are some good points here.  I am against official spokespeople, but I am very for an official web page that posts the official consensus of the GA on all important issues (and unimportant ones wouldn't be bad either.)  If the GA decides that we will not have demands, or puts out a list of demands, that decision and the fat that it is the official position of the NYC General Assembly should be easy to find for the lazy and/or understaffed media.  I have still not heard a good reason why we can't have an official web page, or even why a website with the name NYCGA is not the official site of the NYCGA.
On 10/14/11, 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.