Occupy Wall Street began as the alleged American version of the “Arab Spring,” that movement in the Middle East that so far has toppled dictatorial regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, and which has embroiled Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria in civil conflict.  Over the past three months, the Occupy Wall Street movement has metastasized into protests in multiple U.S. cities, and engendered Occupy clones in Occupy Seattle, Occupy Oakland, and so forth.

Occupy Wall Street Protester Verbally Abusing the Police

While the Occupy Wall Street movement has targeted the large financial institutions (many based, of course, on Wall Street), and has publicized the fact that much of the nation’s wealth is in the hands of the top 1% of the nation’s population, the movement’s physical tactics (occupying city parks, public spaces, marching in streets and causing traffic jams), really has not affected America’s rich elite by even one iota.  No, instead, the physical results of this movement’s protest tactics has been to inconvenience working Americans, those people who get up, leave the house they don’t really own (the bank owns a large percentage of the house), get into a car which they hope to pay off soon (again, the car really belongs to a large financial institution), go to work for less than their labor is really worth, and then get into the borrowed-money car to once again go home to the house they hope to truly own one day.  When Occupy Seattle protesters decided to sock it to Wall Street and the rich fat cats, they took the logical next step and decided to march from the University of Washington, and according to the Seattle P-I, “ At 4:30 p.m. there was a two-mile traffic backup in the University District, and on Capitol Hill there were backups on 10th Avenue East to Volunteer Park. Traffic overflowed to nearby bridges and created snarls around the University of Washington Medical Center.”  Now, if you are familiar with Seattle traffic, it is never very good, even on a good day.  As I live in the Seattle area, (and no, I was not in the traffic jam), I watched the mess on the local news, and heard callers to the next-morning’s call-in radio show discussing their experience as drivers in the mess. The point being, I doubt Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, local multi-billionaires were overly stressed by the woes of working-class Americans getting home to dinner late because of these protesters.

Another group of union-dues paying working class Americans who are thrust into the maw of the Occupy Wall Street protests are the police.  Defending the actions of the police during moments of civil unrest is never popular, but there are fewer jobs in this country with the high level of stress, danger, and injury for the workers than police work.  The lower-rank police officers take orders from their superiors.  The Chief of Police takes orders from the mayor of the city, or some other elected official.  The protesters, in the act of protesting, usually are breaking the law by occupying some space they don’t have a permit to be in, and are interfering with the movement of fellow citizens who are trying to go about their business (such as going home after “working for The Man,” and getting stuck protest-fueled traffic).  The police are called in to clear the way, and therein, some type of physical conflict occurs.  In Egypt or Libya, the authorities started shooting and beating people.  In America, non-lethal means are preferably used, such as picking people up and arresting them, or by the use of chemical agents such as tear gas or pepper spray.  You break the law, you should expect consequences.  You want to protest the fat cats on Wall Street and their lackeys in political power,  of course, the logical thing to do is occupy a college campus, a vital street in the city, or a small park no one ever heard of before in Manhattan.  If the Occupy Wall Street movement really had any guts, why not actually try to occupy the New York Stock Exchange, or, better yet, the offices of political leaders in Congress, or the Congress itself?  Gee, maybe that would actually upset the politicians who mouth nice comments about the “spontaneous” protest movement, and actually cause something to be done about the whole problem. 

The protesters have the constitutional and, perhaps a moral right to be upset about the unequal distribution of wealth in this country.  They have the right to let their voices be heard, but they do not have the right to significantly interfere with the lives of working-class Americans and they certainly do not have the right to engage in illegal acts that put innocent bystanders and the police at harm.  If this movement were serious and truly wanted to send a message to the 1% and their political lap dogs, (who, by the way, belong to both the Republican AND Democratic parties), then interfere with the congressmen and Senators going to and from work; interfere with the commute of those who work in the White House.  That is where the political power lies, and that is where true legislative change can occur.  Don’t take it out on regular Americans.  Remember, the folks in those traffic jams and in the police uniforms are all part of the 99% also.

On the negative side (and you just KNEW I would mention a negative, eh?), is that once again, other Democrats in the 7th District, liberal or otherwise, have no chance to try for that seat, as to challenge a party stalwart like McDermott is heresy.  The Republicans, and I am sure there are a few who live in that district, have almost zero chance of overthrowing the Congressman-for-life.  So why is his longevity a negative?  Simple:  with a true-blue, uber-liberal district with virtually no ideological diversity, there is no incentive for McDermott to do anything beyond what he had done for 23 years.  He is impervious to compromise with his congressional colleagues, and he can afford to ignore his party’s leaders, (including President Obama), if he so chooses.  This is precisely the problem Speaker of the House Boehner has with his more conservative Republicans and the current debt ceiling debate.   Many of these Republicans are in secure districts where they face little or no realistic challenges to re-election.  Thus, they are free to ignore the party leader (which, I admit, is not always a bad thing), and, more importantly, they are free to ignore what is truly best for the nation.  These secure members of Congress only have to justify their actions to their district constituents.  Again, you say, this is a bad thing?  A representative, by definition, is supposed to listen to the folks back home.  True, but when the folks back home have no ideological diversity, this is a problem.  Groupthink in action!

The solution to this of course, is in the once-a-decade process of re-districting.  If each district were actually constructed and populated with a more-or-less equal number of Democrats and Republicans, then a true debate, and a true choice of candidates would flourish in each and every congressional district in the land.  And THAT is good for American Democracy and for every district and every state in the nation. 

 Nothing against Jim McDermott; he is just a creature of his neighborhood.  No different than oh, John Dingell and his safe seat from  Detroit.  He has been in Congress since 1955!   Even Fidel Castro has not been in power that long (yeah, I know he supposedly gave up power to his brother, but you know he still rules the roost).  Democracy should be about legitimate debate and competitive campaigns and elections.  Long-term office-holders like McDermott and Dingell have nothing to fear at home, so they can literally do as they please in Washington City.  Is that what the Founders of this nation truly had in mind?  I sincerely doubt it.

Check out these links if you don’t believe me:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/294183

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/79033/security-bad-democracy-congressional-seats

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2015759143_mcdermott_i_have_every_intent.html

From OregonLive.com October 26, 2010 .In this dark and difficult election year for Democrats, incumbent Sen. Patty Murray could very well be the only thing standing between Republicans and GOP control of the U.S. Senate.

It’s a long shot requiring Republicans to add 10 seats. But with pollsters and campaign experts predicting a Republican “tsunami” up and down the ballot in November, even an improbable chance seems dangerous to Democrats.

All of which explains the tense and hard fought battle in Washington between Murray and Republican Dino Rossi and why the election is unavoidable to anyone in Portland with a TV.

Murray focuses on the benefits — and dollars — she’s brought to Washington state. She rarely goes 10 words without mentioning her efforts to help the middle class. When prodded, she speaks of the power she wields as the No. 4 official in the Senate Democratic leadership. It’s a strategy that’s worked well in a state where people still remember Warren Magnuson, Slade Gorton and Tom Foley, all senior lawmakers with enormous clout.

Rossi’s main argument is that Murray has lost her way. “Eighteen years has completely changed Sen. Murray,” Rossi told reporters Monday. “I believe she went there with good intentions, but she’s not the same person we sent there.”

Like most Republicans this year, Rossi promises a hard line on spending, though he’s thin on specifics beyond calling for an end to “earmarks,” in which lawmakers direct federal money to specific projects. At the same time, he supports permanently extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest Americans.

Earmarks, Rossi said, are akin to “buying a vote.” The charge is a direct hit at Murray who, as a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, has brought huge amounts of federal spending to her state.

Murray does not apologize for that. She talks about cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and trying to get a new bridge across the Columbia River. She mentions the money she’s attracted for veteran’s hospitals and the state ferry system and her strident support for all things Boeing.

Voters “want somebody (in Washington D.C.) who will advocate for them,” she says. “They don’t want somebody who votes down the line of the Republican National Committee.”

She also defends the controversial health care reform bill and stimulus spending.

“I’m doing exactly what I’ve always done,” Murray said in an interview. “I’ve always fought for the people of Washington state and I’ve always run a grassroots campaign.”

Rossi, a polished campaigner who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2004 and 2008, is using this year’s Republican themes, linking Murray to health care reform, financial regulation and the stimulus. He says Democratic control of the federal government will balloon the deficit, raise taxes, increase spending and make life hard for businesses.

His campaign recently hit Murray for the number of former staffers who work as lobbyists and who attract federal dollars.

Rossi’s attack line, coupled with anti-incumbent anger that could turn three House seats in Washington from Democrat to Republican, has some Republicans believing Murray can be beaten. Recent polls show Murray leading, but the race remains close.

Polls suggest that Republicans are almost certain to take seats from Democrats in North Dakota, Arkansas and Indiana. They have a slightly better than even chance of doing that in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Seats in Colorado, Illinois, Nevada and West Virginia held by Democrats are too close to call.

That’s nine seats in all.

No wonder the race between Murray and Rossi has become so tense and expensive. Both candidates – along with a collection of big-name surrogates and wealthy interest groups — are saturating the state with ads, staffing phone banks, and financing robo calls and other tools of modern elections.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has reserved $2 million in advertising time while the National Republican Senatorial Committee has pledged to spend $4 million. Outside groups have spent $7.8 million so far. Most of that money is attacking Murray and supporting Rossi.

The tight race has also led to a flurry of visits — President Obama last week, followed by First Lady Michelle Obama on Monday, with Vice President Joe Biden and former President Bill Clinton earlier in the month.

Chris Vance, former chairman of Washington’s Republican Party, says Murray would normally be untouchable. But this year is not normal.

“It’s a perfect nightmare for Patty Murray — a terrible year for Democrats. (Rossi) is one of the very few people in Washington state who can credibly beat her,” he said in an interview.

Vance, who is not part of Rossi’s Campaign, believes the race is less about Murray than about the angry mood of voters.

“Why is Patty Murray in trouble? The tide,” he said. “It’s about the anti-Obama, anti-Nancy Pelosi, anti-Democrat backlash.”

University of Washington political scientist Matt Barreto believes Murray will squeeze out a victory for two reasons. The first is that reports of a Republican blowout nationally will energize Democrats, said Barreto, who directed the Washington Poll.

The other is Murray’s experience as a candidate. “There are no new tricks,” he said, “nothing she hasn’t seen before.”

Murray, running for a fourth term, sidesteps questions about the race’s national impact. But she acknowledges the intensity of the ad wars and says she understands why voters are angry.

“I talk to people about how we got here. It’s a longer story,” she says, referring to an explanation that includes the cost of two wars, plus the cost of stabilizing the economy as well as the financial system.

Murray is hoping her message will win, but even she concedes a truth about the 2010 election:

“It’s so much easier to say, ‘I’m mad, let’s vote them all out.”‘

The Washington Post (which of course is an expert on the “other” Washington), proclaims the Evergreen State’s senate race as a toss up.  This assumes that both Patty Murray and Dino Rossi survive the new “Top Two” primary and advance to battle in November.  Assuming they do both advance, polls seem to show them as very close among likely voter preference.  While the likeliest scenario is that the two most recognizable names in the race do advance, in this Tea Party year, anything is possible on the Republican side.  While it is easy to discount Paul Akers and Clint Didier, the strong anti-incumbent, and anti-establishment passion among conservative voters could really hurt Rossi. Dino Rossi, among the Republicans, is the establishment figure, despite never having won a state-wide race (or at least making his one win stick…).  Add to that the fact that Rossi is an economic conservative, with a more liberal take on the abortion issue, and Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Clint Didier, and we have an interesting mixture that could bite Rossi. 

If Rossi does manage to join Murray in the rarified air of the “Top Two,” he faces the challenge of energizing the conservative voters who currently back Didier, and/or worship Sarah Palin.  If Rossi cannot corral the Republican Party’s usually reliable Eastern Washington base, he will be in serious trouble.  His best shot is to run against President Obama, not against Murray.  Tuesday night will be interesting…

Breaking his silence after days of baiting from Democrats, Senate candidate Dino Rossi on Wednesday staked his stance on the financial regulatory bill pending before Congress.

Turns out that like Democratic incumbent Sen. Patty Murray, Republican Rossi says he’s on the side of Main Street, not Wall Street.

But unlike Murray, Rossi believes the way to show allegiance to the little guy is to vote against the Financial Regulatory Reform Conference Report instead of for it.

Rossi depicted Murray’s planned vote…http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012359132_financialreform15m.html

In a speech on May 21, 2010, Republican Dino Rossi
spoke of policy and politics, but came just short of
saying he will challenge incumbent Democratic Senator
Patty Murray, who is up for re-election this November.
Speculation has centered around Rossi, who has valuable
state-wide name recognition and respect among
conservative voters after two failed, but close,
campaigns against Washington Governor Christine
Gregoire. Other Republicans have softly criticized
Rossi, saying he must make up his mind soon, since many
funding and endorsement decisions stakeholders are
awaiting news as to whether or not Rossi is indeed in the
race. Already declared Republican candidates include
businessman Paul Akers, ex-NFL football player Clint
Didier and state Sen. Don Benton.

Rossi
at Senate Starting Gate: Will He?–by Joel Connely,
Seattle P-I, May 21, 2010

That having been said, Obama’s choice of Sotomayor makes sense; she is a veteran judge, has a compelling personal history, and in this era of identity politics, the fact she is a female hispanic makes sense.  For more info on the coming confirmation battle, go to:

 http://www.historyguy.com/supremecourt/sonia_sotomayor_supreme_court_appointment.htm

For Governor Gregoire, the timing is perfect, with a highly unpopular budget just passed by the Legislature, most Democratic constituencies in the state unhappy with her (social workers, teacher unions, unions in general, government workers, health care activists, etc.), now is a great time to bail out of a foundering ship of state, and leave the mess to the Lt. Governor, fellow Democrat Brad Owen.  Unless things turn around quickly, and with little pain ( not a likely possibility), Gregoire, should she choose to run for a third term, would likely face a bruising campaign.  With the current Senators from Washington, (Murray and Cantwell), not making noises about retiring, there literally is no where else for this ambitious woman to go.  She has extensive legal experience, served three terms as State Attorney General, and would have the added quality of being, if appointed and confirmed, the only Supreme with elected political experience.  A definite plus if serving in any capacity in Washington City.  Plus, President Obama is a very astute politician, and Washington has firmly been in the Democratic fold in Presidential elections since 1988.  This would be good, quality payback for this state’s firm liberal loyalty.

Washington State would gain advantages from a Gregoire nomination to the Supreme Court as well.  The state has not had a native son (or daughter) on the Supreme Court since William O. Douglas retired in 1975.  Also, given the budget issues mentioned above, a new governor could probably effectively govern better without the baggage of the budget wars recently fougtht in Olympia.  A new Governor Owens would start off fresh, without the leftover detritus that Christine Gregoire will have to deal with the remainder of her term.  If I were the head of the state Democratic Party, I would be actively lobbying the Obama Administration to select Gregoire for all of the above reasons.  Just good politics, you know.

Gregoire has issued the ususal denials, saying things such as ‘thank you, it is such an honor, but…’ which is only par for the course in politics.  You can’t look eager to want something like this.  Playing coy is just part of the game, and Obama certainly knows this. 

Plus, wouldn’t it be cool to see a native of little old Auburn, WA make it all the way to the Supreme Court?

So, wait and see…What do you folks think?

Leave a comment or two…

For Governor Gregoire, the timing is perfect, with a highly unpopular budget just passed by the Legislature, most Democratic constituencies in the state unhappy with her (social workers, teacher unions, unions in general, government workers, health care activists, etc.), now is a great time to bail out of a foundering ship of state, and leave the mess to the Lt. Governor, fellow Democrat Brad Owen.  Unless things turn around quickly, and with little pain ( not a likely possibility), Gregoire, should she choose to run for a third term, would likely face a bruising campaign.  With the current Senators from Washington, (Murray and Cantwell), not making noises about retiring, there literally is no where else for this ambitious woman to go.  She has extensive legal experience, served three terms as State Attorney General, and would have the added quality of being, if appointed and confirmed, the only Supreme with elected political experience.  A definite plus if serving in any capacity in Washington City.  Plus, President Obama is a very astute politician, and Washington has firmly been in the Democratic fold in Presidential elections since 1988.  This would be good, quality payback for this state’s firm liberal loyalty.

Washington State would gain advantages from a Gregoire nomination to the Supreme Court as well.  The state has not had a native son (or daughter) on the Supreme Court since William O. Douglas retired in 1975.  Also, given the budget issues mentioned above, a new governor could probably effectively govern better without the baggage of the budget wars recently fougtht in Olympia.  A new Governor Owens would start off fresh, without the leftover detritus that Christine Gregoire will have to deal with the remainder of her term.  If I were the head of the state Democratic Party, I would be actively lobbying the Obama Administration to select Gregoire for all of the above reasons.  Just good politics, you know.

Gregoire has issued the ususal denials, saying things such as ‘thank you, it is such an honor, but…’ which is only par for the course in politics.  You can’t look eager to want something like this.  Playing coy is just part of the game, and Obama certainly knows this. 

Plus, wouldn’t it be cool to see a native of little old Auburn, WA make it all the way to the Supreme Court?

So, wait and see…What do you folks think?

Leave a comment or two…