From:   Richard Lyon <rllyon@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Monday, October 17, 2011 7:18:40 PM
To:   september17 <september17@googlegroups.com>
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: september17@googlegroups.com [mailto:september17@googlegroups.com] On

> Behalf Of Micah White

> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:54 PM

> To: september17@googlegroups.com

> 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.

>

> Micah

>

> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:49 PM, David DeGraw <Da...@ampedstatus.com>

> 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.

>

> Solidarity,

>

> Jon

>

> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Charles Lenchner <clench...@gmail.com>

> 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 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

> 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.

>

> Charles

>

> 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 >