OWS vs the Tea Party

[crustylicious]

It's more than just the ability to spell! 
 
http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2011/10/14/ows-vs-the-tea-party/
 
You don’t have to look too hard to find someone equating the Occupy Wall Street movement to some sort of “liberal answer” to the Tea Party. Right-wing talking heads and Republicans blowhards are chomping at the bit to paint the national uprising as some kind of Democratic plot to manufacture a popular movement (sort of how Republicans manufactured the Tea Party, by and large). In a continuing attempt by the conservative media to downplay the importance of OWS, we’re going to see them, more and more, considered a fringe sock puppet of crazy Democrats at worst, or a hollow attempt to replicate the Tea Party at best.
 
These criticisms are unfounded, though, and even the most cursory glance at the two movements should shoot that down.
 

• Occupy Wall Street isn’t led by politicians. The genesis of the Tea Party was via the Ron Paul semi-revolution. Paul, the only guy who should be allowed to associate with “Tea Party” ideals, fired up the libertarian base and managed to yank in a number of standard right-wingers by decrying the administration’s economic policies and people came along the for the ride. Later, names like Sarah Palin became the “new” face of the Teabaggers.
• Occupy Wall Street isn’t a political party. There are candidates on ballots who are running as “Tea Party” candidates. Occupy Wall Street is not fielding candidates under their moniker. They’re hoping to influence policy, no doubt, but they are not a political entity in any kind of formal sense.
• Occupy Wall Street is focused. Despite what FOX might want you to believe, OWS has a pretty damn clear message: no more coddling of the wealthiest 1% by crony capitalism at the expense of the 99%. The Tea Party is a directionless cabal of every nutbar conservative thought process possible, most of which are best distilled as “we don’t like Democrats”.
• Occupy Wall Street is true activism. Far from just gathering to wear silly hats and talk about how much Obama sucks, the OWS movement is truly a protest, pressing against authority in the interest of promoting their message. The number of arrests is in four digits now, and looking unlikely to slow down. This is likely why the right hates it so much: the Tea Party was belligerent spectacle with costumes and nonsense, OWS is an actual popular uprising.
• Occupy Wall Street represents the majority of the United States. Most of the Tea Party economic braying centers around giving corporate tax cuts, keeping the wealthy from paying inheritance taxes, letting them pay under the minimum wage, and so forth. OWS is representing those of us who aren’t getting multi-million dollar estates from our parents or aiming for giant severance packages because we “accidentally” annihilated our stockholder’s assets.
• Occupy Wall Street has no significant media/political backing. Far from how quickly Republicans and the right-wing media embraced the Tea Party, OWS has a kind of Michael Moore stigma around it that leaves them insanely popular by the people but avoided by the higher-ups. This might be thanks to all the arrests and police clashes, but the point remains.

Occupy Wall Street is the Iron Maiden to the Tea Party’s Metallica. OWS isn’t getting a lot of support from any establishment, but they’re spreading like wildfire and everyone exposed to them is down with the movement. The Tea Party started out with good ideas, but sold out pretty quickly and now they’re pretty much a joke, still getting fellated by TV talking heads for no discernible reason.

[subdjoe]

ROFLSHIPMP!!!!!!!

[crustylicious]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party/2011/10/13/gIQA3YrViL_blog.html
 
Conservative commentators Karl Rove and George Will argue this week that the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement isn’t comparable to the Tea Party, reasoning that the former is composed of whiners and extremists while the latter is all about mom and apple pie.
But nearly every complaint these commentators lodge against the OWS protesters could have applied to the Tea Party in its early days, and many still do. 
Karl Rove writes:
Occupy Wall Street isn't a movement. It's a series of events populated by a weird cast of disaffected characters, ranging from anarchists and anti-Semites to socialists and LaRouchies.
Because the Tea Party — replete with grown men in three-cornered hats who weren’t paid to wear them, birthers and truthers — has never been “a weird cast of disaffected characters”? Remember when journalists pressed GOP leaders about whether they associated themselves with the racist and anti-Semitic elements in Tea Party protests?
What they have in common is an amorphous anger aimed at banks, investors, rich people and bourgeois values.
What the Tea Party has in common is an amorphous anger aimed at Democrats, moderates, Federal Reserve banks, regular banks, taxes and essential political virtues such as compromise.
The Tea Party reveres the Constitution and wants to change laws to restore the country to prosperity.
Neither the Tea Party nor OWS actually knows how to “restore the country to prosperity.” But surely members of both movements want to.
The Tea Party files for permits for its rallies and picks up its trash afterwards. Occupy Wall Street tolerates protesters who defecate on police cars, allows the open sale of drugs at protests, and features women walking around rallies topless.
Tea Party protesters held up signs of the president of the United States dressed as Hitler, hooted and screamed at lawmakers entering the Capitol, and spit on a Democratic congressman.
George Will writes:
In comportment, OWS is to the Tea Party as Lady Gaga is to Lord Chesterfield: Blocking the Brooklyn Bridge was not persuasion modeled on Tea Party tactics.
But publicly brandishing firearms would be.
No, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street aren’t identical. But both are populist movements, attracting over-passionate protesters eager to blame some cadre of sociopath oligarchs for their problems and flog simplistic “solutions,” all the while accusing “elites” who disagree with them of being corrupt.
“The president and other Democrats,” Rove writes, “need to remember it's always dangerous to associate with people who are just plain kooky.” Republicans would know.

[blind ear]

If something productive doesn't come out of "occupy wall street" the voters will be faced with the "lesser of evils" as they have been for so many decades. Dark horse candidates/parties come through when least expected. I will watch to see how they grow or die, which ever. At this point I don't see a candidate that I "want" to vote for. ear

[BUGEYE]

hopefully winter will show up and put a stop to all this OWS nonsense.  otherwise, they're gonna anger some good old boys and they'll get their collective A$$e$ kicked.
only animals urininate and defecate in the street.

[rio grande]

I appreciate you posting this, Mr. Crustylicious. There's an awful lot of animosity and ad hominem attacks going on here and elsewhere about the OWS crowd, seemingly led by Beck/Limbaugh/Colter types.   And we need more information, for sure.
But the OWS does seem a bit unfocused to me, with all manner of factions proposing all kinds of crazy things, and lots of antics carried out by what appears to me to be provocateurs that are not identified and properly(and peacefully) dealt with by the OWS.

And, in particular, why do the OWS people not condemn the wars overseas?  Why do they not link Obama to the wars, and to the big banks?

What are the demands?  Can you specify them?

And don't pretend the OWS is not in great danger of being 'hi-jacked' by the big unions and the democrat neo-cons.  If it has not happened yet, it soon could.
A more focused group would be able to resist that.

Iron Maiden? Or Stay Puft Marshmallow Man?

 
There is apparently some tension in the OWS...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/12-reasons-why-ows-must-demand-obama-step-down-imm/