XPost: alt.activism, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.society.labor-unions   
   From: weberm@polaris.net   
      
   The so-called Occupy Wall Street movement is drawing some support from   
   beyond the standard assemblage of superannuated hippies, dopey college   
   kids and fatuous liberal journalists. Yesterday "several prominent   
   unions, struggling to gain traction on their own, made their first effort   
   to join forces with Occupy Wall Street," the New York Times reports:   
   "Thousands of union members marched with the protesters from Foley Square   
   to their encampment in nearby Zuccotti Park."   
      
   "Several major labor groups--including the Transport Workers Union, the   
   Service Employees International Union, the United Federation of Teachers   
   and the United Auto Workers--took part in the march," the Times adds,   
   although "some more traditionally conservative ones, like those in the   
   construction trades, stayed away."   
      
   One common characteristic of the four unions the Times cites is that they   
   all include members who work for the government or, in the case of the   
   UAW, for corporate welfare cases. As Michael Barone noted in a February   
   2010 column: "One-third of [2009's] $787 billion stimulus package was aid   
   to state and local governments--an obvious attempt to bolster   
   public-sector unions."   
      
   Thus far Occupiers have been carrying around largely hand-lettered signs   
   saying things like "I could lose my job 4 having a voice" or "Bank's got   
   bailed-out We got sold out!!!" to quote verbatim a couple of examples   
   from a recent slide show from London's Daily Mail.   
      
   In the interest of truth in advertising, the unions ought to print up   
   signs that read "Project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment   
   Act." And now of course President Obama is demanding yet another   
   stimulus, which would subsidize these protests further.   
      
   The fatuous lefty journalists are convinced that the Occupiers are going   
   to prove helpful to Obama's re-election effort. "The anti-Wall Street   
   demonstrators have created a new pole in politics," exults E.J. "Baghdad   
   Bob" Dionne. "Both Obama's [Stimulus Jr.] initiative and the revolt   
   against Wall Street mark a shift on the progressive side from defense to   
   offense. . . . For conservatives, the days of wine and roses are over."   
      
   Prog ventriloquist Rich Yeselson, speaking through Journolist founder   
   Ezra Klein, says the one thing the Occupiers are missing is "an   
   articulate exposition." That, of course, means "the brainy liberal left   
   infrastructure's time has come. . . . [Former Enron adviser Paul]   
   Krugman's Army may be on its way."   
      
   Hang on a second here. Wasn't the man in the White House supposed to have   
   been a community organizer and a brainy expositor himself, not to mention   
   a hell of a lot more charming than the splenetic former Enron adviser?   
   Why does the left need a populist movement when it has such a great   
   leader?   
      
   That last question, of course, is both rhetorical and facetious. This   
   morning, and into the afternoon, found us professionally obliged to sit   
   through another Obama press conference, and it was a pitiful spectacle.   
   As Politico notes, NBC's Chuck Todd summed things up when he asked the   
   president: "Are you worried about your own powers of persuasion and that   
   the American public is maybe not listening to you anymore?"   
      
   "Blah blah blah blah," the president replied. Just kidding--that would at   
   least have shown a little wit. Instead, Obama said: "So if the question   
   is are people feeling cynical and frustrated about the prospects for   
   positive action in this city? Absolutely."   
      
   And if the question is the one that Todd actually asked? No comment.   
      
   Not all fatuous liberal journalists have given up on Obama. Greg Sargent   
   insists that "Obama is clearly winning the argument . . . with the public   
   . . . Obama has made big gains over Republicans on the specific question   
   of who is more trusted to handle jobs. . . . Today's poll shows strong   
   support for Obama on jobs among moderates and independents. . . . Obama   
   is persuading the public to back his plan."   
      
   Oh, but on the other hand: "Obama's overall approval numbers are very   
   bad. . . . You can't sugarcoat the fact that Obama's overall approval   
   numbers on the economy are very bad, including among independents."   
      
   How does Sargent square this circle? Simple: "Those numbers are a   
   referendum on the economy, and the failure to fix it so far--and not a   
   referendum on his current policies, which have strong public support,   
   even as they're being blocked by Republicans."   
      
   So the voters love Obama's policies, they just think he's done a poor job   
   because so far his policies have failed. Or something like that. What   
   definitely does not come through in either the survey results Sargent   
   cites or his analysis of it is a sense that Obama has provided strong   
   leadership.   
      
   Hence the eagerness to believe that the Occupiers represent some sort of   
   true populist uprising. The Hill reports that some Democratic politicians   
   are joining in:   
      
   	"We share the anger and frustration of so many Americans who   
   	have seen the enormous toll that an unchecked Wall Street has   
   	taken on the overwhelming majority of Americans while benefiting   
   	the super-wealthy," Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith   
   	Ellison (D-Minn.) said in a joint statement.   
      
   	"We join the calls for corporate accountability and expanded   
   	middle-class opportunity."   
      
   	The fourth-ranking House Democrat, Caucus Chairman John Larson   
   	(Conn.), released a statement Wednesday saying, "The silent   
   	masses aren't so silent anymore. They are fighting to give   
   	voice to the struggles that everyday Americans are going   
   	through."   
      
   This could easily end up backfiring on Obama. One of the reasons he was   
   able to win so resoundingly in 2008 was that, once he dispatched Hillary   
   Clinton, all of liberaldom was united behind him, particularly including   
   the media, who seem now to be aligning with the Occupiers.   
      
   If a ragtag protest movement--or, in Baghdad Bob's words, "an active and   
   angry band"--plays a central role in the campaign of 2012, Obama may find   
   that, like Lyndon Johnson in 1968 or John Kerry in 2004, he is at the   
   mercy of events beyond his control. An example may be found in this   
   Politico report:   
      
   	Several influential New York state lawmakers have received   
   	threatening mails saying it is "time to kill the wealthy" if   
   	they don't renew the state's tax surcharge on millionaires,   
   	according to reports.   
      
   	"It's time to tax the millionaires!" reads the email, according   
   	to WTEN in Albany. "If you don't, I'm going to pay a visit with   
   	my carbine to one of those tech companies you are so proud of   
   	and shoot every spoiled Ivy League [expletive] I can find."   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)