Friday, April 21, 2006

Pull me in off the ledge

OK. On my way back from lunch I was braced by a gaggle (or is it, cohort) of Lyndon LaRouche followers.

First, didn't they used to be Libertarians? Cause the gaggle-leader insisted, in the same way that Scientologists insist they're in a real religion, that LaRouche had never been a libertarian. In fact, he stated, LaRouche had always been an integral member of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. At this point I was experiencing a little cognitive dissonance -- not unlike when the Bush-flacks tell me that outing a CIA agent is a 'good leak' and blowing the whistle on illegal warrantless eavesdropping is a 'bad leak.' 'Cause I thought ole Lyndon was the leader of a third party called the Libertarians -- I even seem to remember them running candidates, including Lyndon, under the banner Libertarian.

By the way, they are now call the LaRouche Political Action Committee. Gaggle-leader Dan told me that they were headed to the state Democratic Convention tomorrow. He hit me up for some cash to help them go. He told me that when there they want to raise the issue about the privatization of the military (think Halliburton and mercenaries) and the impeachment of Cheney. And the evil bankers who are behind the neo-cons and the DLC.

So as to the reason I need to be pulled off the ledge.

Gaggle-leader Dan fervently and eloquently spoke about the need to create a groundswell, non-Euclidean geometry, changing the environment and other stuff. Bottom line though is that they (LaRouche followers) are now casting Lyndon in an Anti-DLC, Anti-Big Money Democrats and, of course, Anti-Cheney/Bush kind of way.

Now this is something I can really get behind. LaRouche identifies that Democrats need to cast out the likes of Rohatyn (sp) and the bankers who have corrupted the message of FDR democrats in exchange for cash to run campaigns. LaRouche's answer is grassroots organization. I think he's right. I think that big money will not be as important in future, including November 2006, campaigns because of the internet(s). I think that Paul Hackett's campaign against Schmidt is a good example of this.

LaRouche even has solutions to problems and, maybe more importantly, he is not afraid to discuss them. Granted some of the solutions appear dubious in a Star Trek kind-of-way to me, but at least they're solutions.

So pull me in off the ledge, tell me why Lyndon LaRouche's answer is not right, because the Kool-Aid tastes good, but there's a real Nader, in the sense of dividing the democratic party, aftertaste there.

Posted by .
To reply to this post, click HERE. Requires Microsoft Passport.
Tags: | | | | | |