The Republican National Committee seems to think the answer is yes. Here the tear gas in Oakland is shown to describe instability in Obama’s America, and the Occupy protesters are used to demonstrate dissatisfaction with Obama.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MJj4lDmxUw]
Of course, the reality is far more complex. The Occupy protests, at least to date, have not been nearly as critical of Obama, who shares many of their goals, than of the financial establishment and the general pay-to-play culture of Washington. A recent poll of the protesters in Manhattan by Douglas Schoen found they were about as varied in their views of the President as the country as a whole.
An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won’t vote. Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren’t represented by any political party.
But the tent cities do call to mind the Hoovervilles of the 1930s, and tear gas filling the streets of Oakland looks a lot like the protests of 1968, which helped solidify support behind Richard Nixon. But for the comparison to work, you just have to squint your eyes a little bit to not notice that the Occupy protesters are saying things–on student loans, taxation, income distribution, regulation–that sound a lot like what Obama is saying, and almost nothing like what Republicans are saying.