If you look at methods alone, there isn't a huge difference between the Wall Street protests and the Tea Party protests. They have very different values, different demands, and different bases of support. But both utilize the First Amendment as a means of making their point.
The Wall Streeters are more rowdy, and as a result have seen quite a bit of police involvement. There have been far fewer arrests at individual Tea Party events. Some of the Wall Street arrests and the overly physical nature of the police are unnecessary. But there is little doubt the Wall Streeters are far more provocative and looking to antagonize the police, given 
the nature of the agitators involved. We've seen them before. They know the best way to get on TV is to create a scene, and they are good at doing it. Is it a surprise so much of the 'police violence' is being caught on video? They are planning to get this on video by initiating events which will lead to the use of violence, even at moments when the police probably should show more restraint.
So why does Obama view one set of protestors an "expression of frustration", while the other is "misidentifying sort of who the culprits are"? Both are viable protests, seeking to make points and be heard. From that standpoint, both are worthy of having Obama's full attention. But no, one has been formally rejected by the "vast majority" of Americans.
To be clear, there is no reason to prevent either group from gathering, protesting, or speaking. It's unfair to say one is more legitimate than the other. But for our country's leader to recognize one as more valid than the other is absurd. Particularly when the group which he considers more valid has not made its agenda clear, is only advocating a never ending list of grievances without valid solutions, and is provoking violent activity (some of it, but not all, unwarranted) on the part of the police. Tea Partiers, whether you support or oppose them, have tended to gather peacefully and have made their agenda clear. They support smaller government, lower taxes and they oppose crony capitalism. What's interesting is the two groups share that final point. Where they differ is on solutions.
The Tea Party solves crony capitalism by shrinking government and getting it out of the way. The Wall Street protestors don't have a clear solution, but it's clear increasing the role of government is part of their solution. Increasing that role with politicians 'who care'. In other words, people like them.
The Wall Streeters' world is like Orwell's "Animal Farm", where some people are more equal than others. Their solution, unfortunately, is to keep it that way, but change the people who are more equal.
Wall Street Protests vs. Tea Partiers - Maggie’s Farm If you look at methods alone, there isn’t a huge difference between the Wall Street protests and the Tea Party protests. They have very different values, different demands, and differen...
Tracked: Oct 06, 22:23