|From:||Richard Lyon <email@example.com>|
|Sent time:||Monday, October 17, 2011 7:18:40 PM|
|Subject:||[september17discuss] Re: MoveOn Execs Now Official Spokespeople For OWS, According to MSM Execs|
I'd like to comment on the situation at Daily Kos. I agree with what
has been said about the dangers of the management at Daily Kos and
MoveOn trying to co-opt the movement for their own benefit. At Daily
Kos it is important to make a distinction between Markos Moulitas and
his front page clack and people who express their own views in
personal diaries. Right now there is a very sizable number of people
who are involved in local OWS groups and are strongly to the movement
and its new ways of doing things. The DKos site provides a convenient
place to communicate and promote the needs of local OWS movements.
On Oct 14, 1:36 pm, "Jackie DiSalvo" <jdisa...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> We should make clear that OWS is not an electoral but an activist
> organization and recognizes the complicity of both parties (probably to
> different extents and with different ends) with Wall Street. But, I think,
> before we publicly attack Move On, whose membership no doubt overlaps
> somewhat with that of the occupations (who, in fact, are not all
> revolutionaries but no doubt include many Democrats), and whose membership
> is a base we can recruit from, we should confront them & try to get them to
> agree to stop misrepresenting their relationship to OWS.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of Micah White
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:54 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [september17discuss] MoveOn Execs Now Official Spokespeople For
> OWS, According to MSM Execs
> 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 <Da...@ampedstatus.com>
> 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 <clench...@gmail.com>
> 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 NYCGA.net 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
> 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
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM, David DeGraw <Da...@ampedstatus.com> wrote:
> top MoveOn leaders / executives are all over national television speaking
> for the movement. Saying We, We, We, We and directing people to
> OccupyWallStreetEvents.com, 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.
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|