• Comment (49)

Democrats Should Condemn Occupy Wall Street

November 17, 2011 RSS Feed Print

It is still a mystery why anyone takes the Occupy Wall Street crowd seriously. They are certainly impressed with themselves—as though what they are doing has some sort of deeper cultural meaning. They revel in the fact that their activities have sparked some kind of discussion of so-called income equality but, in point of fact, more people are paying attention to the crime, the sloth, and the disruptions they have caused rather than any kind of central message.

[See photos of the "Occupy" protests.]

A central theme of these protesters, first enunciated by leftist organizer and political theorist Saul Alinsky, is that those who are not with them are against them. They fail to see, however, that in this regard it is they who are the 1 percent. Most Americans do not walk away from their daily lives to camp out in public parks as part of some kind of artesian social protest. They do not clog streets, shut down businesses, and rail against the inequalities of the system in front of adoring television cameras. The winds of change have arrived. They are blowing against the protesters, and those who have supported them thus far must be called to account.

"The behavior of the Occupy Wall Street protesters is boorish and violent, and it has no place in civil society," said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. "It's shocking that the very same people who tried and failed to tie the Tea Party movement to racism and radicalism are now embracing the Occupy mob despite the reports of widespread violence, anti-Semitism, and general lawlessness. If these people hope to retain any shred of credibility, they must take responsibility for their poor judgment and condemn the Occupy protests."

[Read the  U.S. News debate on whether Occupy Wall Street is the next Tea Party]

Borelli puts it well. So desperate are the Democrats to see a broad-based social movement in support of their ideals—something that is the analog to the Tea Party—they embraced the first thing that came along. Unfortunately for them, the collection of anarchists, socialists, communists, labor organizers, and the uninformed that compose the ranks of the Occupy-ers was the wrong horse to ride. The more the country sees of the Occupy-ers the more America understands the Occupy-ers are not "them." They are something else entirely, something of which most Americans want no part.

Tags:
Tea Party,
Occupy Wall Street

Reader Comments Read all comments (49)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I guess that when Bruce is found to be somewhat lacking in his arguments on one subject, he then tries switching arguments. It's call "misdirection" and is a favorite (if pathetic) tactic among those whom don't have a leg to stand on.

Now that he's been shown to be a fool as regards "advance directives" and Newt's supposed "lobbying", he now settles on the $37 million that his think tank took in:

"guess you folks don;t want to touch the 37 million that the newtster bagged under the guise of"acess" from the center for health information."

And what amount do YOU think would have been appropriate over that time span (8 years) for a company that employs 30 or more people?

And how much do you think each of those people should be paid?

What sort of fixed overhead do you think that company should have (salaries, rent, utilities, office supplies, etc, for 3 facilities)?

Are they supposed to operate on a budget deficit?

Oops - shouldn't ask that last question of a far leftie! :)

$4.6 million a year income for a think tank that employs 30+ people in the healthcare advisory industry is peanuts - that works out to about $150k salary per person if ONLY salaries are paid out of those monies.

Bruce: IF Newt actually personally did lobbying on behalf of his firms clients, then you would have a leg to stand on as far as calling him a "lobbyist". Unfortunately for you, as well as the rest of the Newt detractors, you've chosen to climb aboard a train that has no locomotive. Lord knows Newt has enough other, legitimate, baggage for you to highlight (find me a candidate without baggage, and I'll find you a monk), but on this particular subject, you are so far off base that even left field isn't long enough to contain you.

All this reminds me of the flap over the $25k (or whatever it was) per month that the McCain campaign paid for Palin's hairdresser.

Oooooo! $25k a month for a hair dresser! Oooooo! Who does she think she is? Oooooo! Such frivilous waste! Ooooo! We have a "Gotcha"!

For those who don't understand how business works, in the case of the hairdresser, the woman had (still has) a very successful business in LA, where she most likely personally brings in much more than that each month. She was asked to leave that business, travel full time on the campaign trail, and be available and ready to work, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Personally, I'm surprised that she didn't ask for that amount per WEEK - the campaign trail is an absolute bear mentally (and pretty tough physically), and makes working in a mine look easy.

The only reason for that hairdresser to take such a pay cut would be on the gamble that the publicity it would bring would grow her business even further.

The funny thing is, the people whom jump on such inanities in their quest to shoot down an opponent don't realize that their actions only show the world how small their minds are, not how bad their opponent is.

Not much intellect being used at your end, Bruce. Try again.

junior of DC 1:12PM November 20, 2011

brucetee Can't answer Me ? N O R M...

Newt top man. You called it w r o n g. Each and every time.

Natural you don't notice we answered your baloney. You pick through our comments for scraps you can respond to like a starving dog .

Still waiting for proof of Newt's “ sordid involvement with freddie mac.” As far as the $$$ 1.6 million:

Video

http://www.newt.org/news/video-newt-answers-depth-questions-concerning-freddie-mac

Your characterization of the heath company was totally off the wall. And yes that was answered. You have eyes but unable to see.

Newt wears big boy paints and able to take care of himself. Most of the crew that left Newt is now back. Jones and all the others gone for barry are gone still. Will see if Attorney General lives in DC when Fast & Furious is settled. Barry has several alternative energy companies hanging over his head. But he wants to lie to Freedom of Information act request. That guy you admire...

When you toss around " hypocrite and hypocrisy" I general disprove it.

You have said Newt was fired from House, Newt was regional candidate, and religious folk would be against him. Brucetee your batting “”0”””.

Bill Hedges of MO 6:13AM November 20, 2011

mr. bill you keep defending newt, he needs all the help he can muster.theres so few of your thinking.

bruce b of NV 1:52AM November 20, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement