Several people in the comments said something very similar - that "99%" should be the brand. People said "occupy" sounds a little threatening. I think you're onto something.

-David

I wondered if anyone would notice that. I thought it was kind of funny, myself. I even went to the trouble to look up Holyfield's name, to get it right. Heh.

That is an excellent, excellent article. I strongly recommend it to everyone. I had never heard of the Powell Memo, and your rundown on how the 1% manipulate divisions of people is brilliant.

I almost wrote today (I may do so on Thursday) in a plea to Occupy Wall Street to start using "99 percenters" to self-identify the movement. It makes a lot more sense, and is a powerful statement in its own right. Also, it's a lot snappier than the "Occupy Wall Streeters" and "OWS" just sounds like what you'd say if you were punched in the stomach (at least, to me).

Anyway, I strongly ecourage everyone to read Akadjian's article on Kos. Well done.

-CW

Second, thank you for posting the wonderful Obama quotes which the mainstream media seems largely to miss. Or maybe I'm just not listening to as much mainstream media anymore. He is a great advocate for his case and it's exciting to hear him taking more and more of that role.

Third, I swore I was not going to post this. But then you mentioned "We Are the 99%". Here's why I think that it's such a great slogan:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/10/1024591/-99:-A-Warning-to-OWS-and-the-Rest-of-Us?via=history

-David

no seriously, i'm not missing it, i just disagree with it. there's a difference between relentlessly obstructing a few appointments or pieces of legislation and obstructing every appointment and piece of legislation. that difference isn't just in the quantity or relative effectiveness of the obstruction, it's in the effect said obstruction has on the country as a whole. as much as the dems disliked some of the bush agenda, as much as the republicans disliked some of the clinton agenda, there existed a limit beyond which neither would go. in the 90's i envied the resolve of the gingrich republicans to check clinton, and would have liked for the dems to be equally steadfast against some aspects of the bush agenda.

but the current republicans are a different story; they've gone past steadfast and into the realm of reckless. an equivalent example on the other side would be the dems who favored cutting off all war funding, even though it would have meant endangering national security and the lives of our troops. fortunately for our country, those dems were not in control of the party's overall actions. unfortunately for our country, current congressional republicans are being led by such a faction.

You are still missing my point.

The way the GOP sees things, it's the good of the country that guides their obstruction..

Just like it's the good of the country that guides Democrats when THEY are obstructionist...

That's how BOTH Partys justify their actions.

Granted, neither are usually right. They just follow their political ideology..

Again, the religious fanatic is a perfect example.

With respect to our host, Republicans and Democrats remind me of the Protestants and Catholics of Ireland... Each so sure that THEY are the "chosen ones" and their actions are right...

What it all boils down to is one cannot blame one political Party for actions that are committed by the other political Party.

Republicans obstruct the Democrat's agenda

Democrats obstruct the Republican's agenda

It's how things are.

Unfortunately, we are the losers in all of that political BS...

Unless one is going to bash BOTH Partys for the actions (as I do) then one simply has to accept it..

Michale.....

Therefore you can't blame the GOP for being obstructionist simply because they do it better than Democrats...

still no. the key words in my prior post were "a few select measures." forceful opposition can be a good thing, but more is not always better when obstructing an agenda one disagrees with. if you harm the whole country just to stop every piece of possibly poor legislation, i would not call that a win. it's like avoiding saturated fat by starving oneself.

there has to be a point at which the good of the country comes before ideology, and prior to the current crop of republicans, both parties seemed to realize this.

in a word, no.

Really??

Hmmmmmmm

Well, color me silly, but if one political Party is pushing an agenda that is bad for the country, I would expect the other political Party to obstruct it...

although i certainly would have liked the democrats to be more forceful in their opposition to a few select measures under bush, most of those fights need to be waged at the ballot box, not be forced to cloture.

Which simply proves what I said earlier..

You feel it's a political Party's "duty" to be obstructionist in the furtherance of your preferred agenda...

Therefore you can't blame the GOP for being obstructionist simply because they do it better than Democrats...

Bashi,

You would be right to point out that they are all drinking but the level of drinking is what makes all the difference.

Does it???

If two beers puts one over the legal limit, it doesn't really matter beyond that. At least from a legal point of view...

All I am saying is that it's ridiculous to blame the Right for being more obstructionist but condone the Left for being a little less obstructionist..

It's the minority Party's JOB to be obstructionist to the agenda of the majority Party...

Me??

I would prefer that BOTH Partys would work for the betterment of the country rather than the furtherance of their own agenda, but we all know that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of THAT happening....

On another note....

Ya'all may dispute the messenger.....

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/10/why-democrats-will-never-have-permanent-advantage-in-american-politics/

.... But you cannot fault the message....

Michale.....

I think his point was:

No it is not functional government and that is because of the level of obstructionism.

I would put it this way:

The old way was to have a beer, maybe two, get in the car and drive somewhere.

The last democrats were having three to four beers and driving somewhere.

The current republicans are having eight beers and driving somewhere.

You would be right to point out that they are all drinking but the level of drinking is what makes all the difference.

Wouldn't you agree??

in a word, no. although i certainly would have liked the democrats to be more forceful in their opposition to a few select measures under bush, most of those fights need to be waged at the ballot box, not be forced to cloture.

Wouldn't you agree??

Michale.....

Look at the past two years...

Would you call that a "functional" government???

Put it in a different context..

If you are walking down the street and you see some scumbag beatin' the crap out of some girl, would you "obstruct" him from continuing to beat on that girl??

I know I would..

You think of "obstructionism" as a BAD thing if it's the Democratic Party agenda being obstructed..

All I am saying is that there are those Americans who think that "obstructing" the Democratic Party agenda is a GOOD thing...

We heard from those folks loud and clear in the 2010 elections...

Michale.....

i assumed no such thing. the meaning of "obstructionism" is allowing one's devotion to ideology take precedence over allowing the government to function. more obstructionism is not merely being more true to one's ideology, it's even more frequently putting one's ideology before the well-being of the country.

Let me rephrase that to say:

Your chain of logic would fall apart *IF* your assumption is faulty..

My bust... :D

Michale....

true enough, but there are levels of it. factually, the Republicans during Obama's tenure have used the filibuster more times than the entire rest of the country's history put together.

And Obama has raised the deficit/debt more than all the presidents before him "put together"...

The problem with those kinds of stats is that they sound horrible...

But, when put into context...???

Not so much...

therefore, although democrats most certainly have whined and obstructed in the past, the republicans can legitimately be criticized for taking obstructionism to a new low.

I see the problem here...

Your chain of logic falls apart based on one faulty assumption..

You are assuming that the Democratic Party's agenda is GOOD for the country and, therefore, the GOP obstructing it represents a "new low"...

However, what happens if you forget your basic assumption and run with your thought process, under the assumption that the Democratic Party's agenda is bad... VERY bad for this country??

What do the GOP's obstructionist actions look like NOW???

You see why I equate political ideology with religious fanaticism???

Your "priests" are pure and good and right so, obviously, anyone who obstructs their agenda must be evil and dragging it to a "new low"...

But what you don't see is that THEIR "priests" are viewed as pure and good and right so.......

Now YOUR actions are cast as evil and dragged to a "new low"..

You see the point??

According to the GOP, they are DEFENDING the country by being obstructionist....

And their devotion to their ideology is as valid as the Left's devotion to THEIR ideology..

And, I have to be honest here.. Considering the last couple years and the depths of incompetence we have seen with the Obama administration, I would say that the Right has more of a factual and logical point than the Left.

In this particular instance...

Michale......

true enough, but there are levels of it. factually, the Republicans during Obama's tenure have used the filibuster more times than the entire rest of the country's history put together. therefore, although democrats most certainly have whined and obstructed in the past, the republicans can legitimately be criticized for taking obstructionism to a new low.

the equivalency argument on the other side is like saying "Bush started it" as a means of defending this term's military waste or debt spending. certainly the other side has done it too, but each congress must be responsible for its respective faults.

With the utmost respect, I am constrained to point out that, for much of this past week around here, discussions have been centered around this very attitude, but coming from the Left directed to the Right...

We should all just agree that politicians will whine and cry when the other side is being obstructionist and just leave it at that. And that BOTH Partys are obstructionist when they are in the minority.

It's how our system of government ... er... "works"...

Complaining about the minority Party being obstructionist is like complaining when the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

It's simply the way things are...

And for that, Senator Chuck Schumer is this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Well done, Senator, on framing the debate in such a simple and effective way.

Let me ask a sincere and honest question..

What if the CBO "Jobs Score" shows that any kind of "Millionaire Tax" would result in a LOSS of jobs..

Would ya'all be so keen on taxing the rich then???

We're not yet ready to go that far, at least until we hear an explanation of this policy reversal from the White House itself. So, for now, the MDDOTW award will have to go to Eric Holder.

I think Holder is much more deserving of the MDDOTW for his bone head moves regarding FAST AND FURIOUS... The guns of FAST AND FURIOUS got American lawmen killed...

As far as the talking points on the American Jobs Act....

There is one itsy bitsy teeny weeny problem..

It's the DEMOCRATS that are holding up progress on Obama's Jobs bill...

The GOP wants to vote on it... Democrats don't...

So, it looks like it's the DEMOCRATS who are being obstructionist, eh??

Howz THAT for irony... :D

"Define irony: a bunch of idiots dancing around on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash."
-Steve Buscemi, CON AIR

:D

Michale.....

What Everyone Is Too Polite to Say About Steve Jobs
http://gawker.com/5847344/what-everyone-is-too-polite-to-say-about-steve-jobs

There are many aspects of Jobs' character that should cause all Liberals and Progressives, nay all decent human beings, to cringe in horror...

Michale.....