HolyCoast: The Connection Between #OccupyWallStreet, Mayor Bloomberg, and Obama

Thursday, October 13, 2011

The Connection Between #OccupyWallStreet, Mayor Bloomberg, and Obama

I've been wondering for awhile why Mayor Bloomberg felt he was empowered to allow the human detritus of Occupy Wall Street to stay on private property over which he should have no control, and Reader Sam provided the story that explains it all:
Coming on the heels of the Solyndra debacle, the Obama administration has just approved a $168.9 million loan guarantee for the Granite Reliable wind farm project owned by Brookfield Asset Management (BAM).

Among its many holdings BAM owns Brookfield Renewable Power, which owns the Granite Reliable and it also owns Brookfield Office Properties, whose holdings include the now famous Zuccotti Park.

The Department of Energy finalized the loan guarantee less than a week after Occupy Wall Street protesters took to Zuccotti Park, and with the Obama administration's Tuesday endorsement of the protests, rumors are starting to circulate that this could be the reason Brookfield is allowing protesters to remain on its property.

The Granite Reliable Power Project under construction in Coos Bay, New Hampshire is the state's largest wind farm and the New Hampshire Union Leader questions why Brookfield would need federal subsidies at all, particularly following the bankruptcy of Solyndra.

Mayor Bloomberg's announcement Monday that protesters could remain as long as they liked, also raised a few eyebrows and it turns out he has a personal connection to Brookfield as well. The mayor's longtime domestic partner Diana Taylor is on the Board of Directors at Brookfield Properties along with John E. Zuccotti himself.
Aha. So it appears there's an unholy alliance between the radicals, most of whom are clueless about what they're doing, and the Democrats who seem to be using this movement to distract from the mess Obama has made of the country.

Karl Rove has a piece today on how Democrats seem to be trying to align themselves with this crazy movement, and how that could backfire:
The fact that it lacks a clear program means that Occupy Wall Street is susceptible to being captured by even more extreme elements. It's no accident its rallies and marches around the country include signs extolling wacky causes and marginal, but highly organized, left-wing groups. Nothing draws ideologues who know what they want as fast as a malleable crowd that doesn't.

What Democrats eager to latch on to the Occupy Wall Street protests don't seem to fully grasp is that these events are in part an expression of deep dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and other D.C. Democrats. Some young Occupy Wall Street participants are angry because their economic future seems so bleak. They want someone to hold responsible for the absence of jobs. Others see Mr. Obama as insufficiently liberal. And some are simply nutty: A third of the protesters polled by New York magazine say the United States is as bad as al Qaeda.

While Mr. Obama and other top Democrats may be momentarily excited by the notion of a long-term relationship, Occupy Wall Street may not want to even go out for a date. The refusal of protestors in Atlanta to allow Congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis to address their rally is just one sign this may not be a terribly Democratic-friendly crowd.

Rushing to identify with Occupy Wall Street could well threaten Mr. Obama's re-election by putting off the very swing voters whom the president needs. It could further diminish the president's support from center-left business leaders, already sick of Mr. Obama's class warfare and faux populism. Appearing to condone the crude personal behavior of Occupy Wall Street protestors can also further erode Mr. Obama's standing with culturally conservative blue-collar voters.
Democrats are crazy to try and claim this movement as an ally. The Occupy Wall Street crowd like to claim they represent the "99%", but more likely they represent something like 5-10% that's the wacky left and little more.

1 comment:

Larry said...

An article said that Lewis was not allowed to speak “because the movement is ‘not about one individual’ and that it has been built on the idea of ‘no hierarchy.’” Being blocked from speaking over a technicality (only a couple people objected) is a far cry from how someone like Donald Trump would get treated at the same rally. Forget adressing the crowd Mr. Trump, just try getting out of there alive!

The fact is that these protesters are refusing to protest at the White House. That simple fact tells me that there IS a hierarchy, but that it's behind the scenes. Obama was a community organizer -an agitator. He won't rush to identify with Occupy Wall Street because it serves the interest of both Obama and the protesters to appear separate -yet not critical of each other.