Mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the article! So that we Libertarians do not feel so bad,
UFPJ is endorsing the mostly Libertarian Peace Rally on March 19. And
BTW, The Stop Funding the War Coalition racked its brain trying to
think of Libertarians who would/could speak exclusively on the war,
and came up with only one, Raimondo, who graciously accepted the
invitation to speak at the Rally. Suggestions welcome!!
Marcy
From my friend Mesha in the Bayview.
Mike
________________________________
From: Iolmisha@… [mailto:Iolmisha@…]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:14 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: ???Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/poprogress/message/25290;_ylc=X3oDMTJya
TR
kNzdiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE4MTU3MjcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzOTg1BG1zZ
0l
kAzI1MjkwBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzNzY2ODk->
Posted by: "bob" bobo926@…
<mailto:bobo926@…?Subject=%20Re%3ANader%20and%20Libertarians%2
0Not%20Welcome> bobz640 <http://profiles.yahoo.com/bobz640>Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:32 am (PST) February 12, 2007
Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
A Splintered Antiwar MovementBy John Walsh
The roster of speakers for the UFPJ demonstration in Washington
D.C. on
January 27 speaks volumes. The key was not so much who was included
but
who
was not. The list of speakers certainly had a lot of wonderful
activists
in
the peace movement, but to a considerable degree it was a line-up of
Democrats and movie stars.Ralph Nader, who was in Washington that weekend, was pointedly not
invited
to speak. On Saturday night Nader was reportedly inquiring of other
independents just who had been invited to speak among their growing
number.
Imagine that; the only antiwar candidate in the 2004 elections was
not
an
invited speaker, even though he and Cindy Sheehan drew tremendous
applause
at the last mass rally in 2005 (Notice how these rallies occur now
only
in
only non-election years, nicely tailored to get activists to work
for
Dems,
but not to pressure the Dems to take a strong anti-war stand.) The
non-invitation removed Nader from the movement every bit as
effectively
as
the censors armed with air brushes removed dissidents in
the "socialist"
Czech republic chronicled by Milan Kundera.
Nor was there anyone who spoke
as a representative of the Green Party, even though at least one
speaker
was
in fact a Green and even though an informal survey showed an
enormous
number
of people in the crowd were Greens or Green sympathizers. Yes, the
Greens
were "permitted" a feeder march but their only organized presence
on the
Mall that this writer could find was a small card table with three
women
staffing it.
There was not a single Libertarian speaker even though the
Libertarians
and
Old Right have been far more outspoken in opposing the war than the
liberal
"Left."
Compare the pages of The American Conservative or Antiwar.com with
the editorials of The Nation, which endorsed the pro-war Kerry
candidacy
in
2004. This writer tried for months to get Ron Paul, the
Libertarian/Republican Congressman from Texas, now a Republican
presidential candidate, invited to speak at the rally and did so
also in
2005. Several of us made an appeal to get Justin Raimondo, the
Libertarian editor of
Antiwar.com invited to speak.We got no response from UFPJ, and still have
received none.
In contrast, Raimondo advertised the UFPJ demonstration in a
prominent place on his web site, and he even offered to pay his own
air
fare
to D.C. to speak. But no response was forthcoming from whatever
committee
decides on the speakers, a committee which is none too visible.
UFPJ was
just plain rude to Raimondo. In general it appears that the liberal
"Left"
has scant knowledge about the Libertarians and less desire to
acquire
it.
Libertarians are just "a bunch of selfish people," according to the
PC
liberals. But there are more things in heaven and earth than the
very PC
have dreamed of.
There were far fewer kaffiyas in evidence than in the past, the
inevitable
result of reading ANSWER out of the official antiwar movement. (To
be
fair,
Noura Erekat and Joshua Reubner, both from the same organization, US
Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, spoke.)The only reason given for UFPJ's severing relations with ANSWER is
that
their members were "impossible to deal with in meetings." That is
hardly
a political reason. Bad manners are not a reason for
excommunication. If
so, the antiwar forces would not be talking to the crotchety Barney
Frank. I do not know a lot about ANSWER, but I do have a great deal
of
respect for Ramsey Clark, one of its leaders.
And I also have a lot of respect for ANSWER's ability to turn out
young
people and its boldness in organizing events like the demonstration
against Bush on the occasion of his inauguration. At the
demonstration I
heard no mention of AIPAC's obvious role in ginning up the war on
Iraq
or Iran. At this point in the development of the movement after the
paper of Measheimer and Walt and
after Jimmy Carter's book, this is indeed a troubling omission.What is the matter with Democratic politicians, you may say.
Nothing, as
such. And the politicians speaking at the rally were among the best
that
the
timid Dems have to offer - Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Dennis
Kucinich,
for example. But these Democrats do not represent the Democratic
Party;
they
are an idealistic few on its fringe. To have only Democrats and no
others is
to create the false impression that the Democratic Party is a
vehicle
for
peace. And it creates false hopes about what the Dems will do
without
mighty
pressure.So the peace movement is being increasingly tied to the Democratic
Party.
This is certainly the strategy of MoveOn.org and of "P"DA
("Progressive"
Democrats of America) - and now apparently also UFPJ. This may be
why
the
rally seemed far smaller and certainly far less spirited, stodgy I
would
say, than in the past.
Let's hope that the hard working and committed people
working in UFPJ turn from this path and do more to bring the
splintered
movement together. Because if the antiwar movement is divided, we
are
subject to being conquered - just as surely as the Sunni and the
Shia.
It is
time for the Democratic Party to serve the Peace Movement and not
the
Dear Marcy;
Has anyone inquired as to whether Steve Kubby might be interested?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the article! So that we Libertarians do not feel so bad,
UFPJ is endorsing the mostly Libertarian Peace Rally on March 19.
And
BTW, The Stop Funding the War Coalition racked its brain trying to
think of Libertarians who would/could speak exclusively on the war,
and came up with only one, Raimondo, who graciously accepted the
invitation to speak at the Rally. Suggestions welcome!!Marcy
>
> From my friend Mesha in the Bayview.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Iolmisha@ [mailto:Iolmisha@]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:14 PM
> To: undisclosed-recipients
> Subject: ???
>
>
>
>
>
> Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/poprogress/message/25290;_ylc=X3oDMTJya
TR
>
kNzdiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE4MTU3MjcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzOTg1BG1zZ
0l
> kAzI1MjkwBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzNzY2ODk->
>
> Posted by: "bob" bobo926@
> <mailto:bobo926@?Subject=%20Re%3ANader%20and%20Libertarians%2
> 0Not%20Welcome> bobz640 <http://profiles.yahoo.com/bobz640>
>
> Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:32 am (PST) February 12, 2007
>
> Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
> A Splintered Antiwar Movement
>
> By John Walsh
>
> The roster of speakers for the UFPJ demonstration in Washington
D.C. on
> January 27 speaks volumes. The key was not so much who was
included
but
> who
> was not. The list of speakers certainly had a lot of wonderful
activists
> in
> the peace movement, but to a considerable degree it was a line-up
of
> Democrats and movie stars.
>
> Ralph Nader, who was in Washington that weekend, was pointedly not
> invited
> to speak. On Saturday night Nader was reportedly inquiring of
other
> independents just who had been invited to speak among their
growing
> number.
> Imagine that; the only antiwar candidate in the 2004 elections
was
not
> an
> invited speaker, even though he and Cindy Sheehan drew tremendous
> applause
> at the last mass rally in 2005 (Notice how these rallies occur
now
only
> in
> only non-election years, nicely tailored to get activists to work
for
> Dems,
> but not to pressure the Dems to take a strong anti-war stand.) The
> non-invitation removed Nader from the movement every bit as
effectively
> as
> the censors armed with air brushes removed dissidents in
the "socialist"
> Czech republic chronicled by Milan Kundera.
>
> Nor was there anyone who spoke
> as a representative of the Green Party, even though at least one
speaker
> was
> in fact a Green and even though an informal survey showed an
enormous
> number
> of people in the crowd were Greens or Green sympathizers. Yes, the
> Greens
> were "permitted" a feeder march but their only organized presence
on the
> Mall that this writer could find was a small card table with
three
women
> staffing it.
>
> There was not a single Libertarian speaker even though the
Libertarians
> and
> Old Right have been far more outspoken in opposing the war than
the
> liberal
> "Left."
> Compare the pages of The American Conservative or Antiwar.com with
> the editorials of The Nation, which endorsed the pro-war Kerry
candidacy
> in
> 2004. This writer tried for months to get Ron Paul, the
> Libertarian/Republican Congressman from Texas, now a Republican
> presidential candidate, invited to speak at the rally and did so
also in
> 2005. Several of us made an appeal to get Justin Raimondo, the
> Libertarian editor of
> Antiwar.com invited to speak.
>
> We got no response from UFPJ, and still have
> received none.
> In contrast, Raimondo advertised the UFPJ demonstration in a
> prominent place on his web site, and he even offered to pay his
own
air
> fare
> to D.C. to speak. But no response was forthcoming from whatever
> committee
> decides on the speakers, a committee which is none too visible.
UFPJ was
> just plain rude to Raimondo. In general it appears that the
liberal
> "Left"
> has scant knowledge about the Libertarians and less desire to
acquire
> it.
> Libertarians are just "a bunch of selfish people," according to
the
PC
> liberals. But there are more things in heaven and earth than the
very PC
> have dreamed of.
>
> There were far fewer kaffiyas in evidence than in the past, the
> inevitable
> result of reading ANSWER out of the official antiwar movement.
(To
be
> fair,
> Noura Erekat and Joshua Reubner, both from the same organization,
US
> Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, spoke.)
>
> The only reason given for UFPJ's severing relations with ANSWER
is
that
> their members were "impossible to deal with in meetings." That is
hardly
> a political reason. Bad manners are not a reason for
excommunication. If
> so, the antiwar forces would not be talking to the crotchety
Barney
> Frank. I do not know a lot about ANSWER, but I do have a great
deal
of
> respect for Ramsey Clark, one of its leaders.
> And I also have a lot of respect for ANSWER's ability to turn out
young
> people and its boldness in organizing events like the
demonstration
> against Bush on the occasion of his inauguration. At the
demonstration I
> heard no mention of AIPAC's obvious role in ginning up the war on
Iraq
> or Iran. At this point in the development of the movement after
the
> paper of Measheimer and Walt and
> after Jimmy Carter's book, this is indeed a troubling omission.
>
> What is the matter with Democratic politicians, you may say.
Nothing, as
> such. And the politicians speaking at the rally were among the
best
that
> the
> timid Dems have to offer - Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Dennis
> Kucinich,
> for example. But these Democrats do not represent the Democratic
Party;
> they
> are an idealistic few on its fringe. To have only Democrats and no
> others is
> to create the false impression that the Democratic Party is a
vehicle
> for
> peace. And it creates false hopes about what the Dems will do
without
> mighty
> pressure.
>
> So the peace movement is being increasingly tied to the Democratic
> Party.
> This is certainly the strategy of MoveOn.org and of "P"DA
("Progressive"
> Democrats of America) - and now apparently also UFPJ. This may be
why
> the
> rally seemed far smaller and certainly far less spirited, stodgy
I
would
> say, than in the past.
>
> Let's hope that the hard working and committed people
> working in UFPJ turn from this path and do more to bring the
splintered
> movement together. Because if the antiwar movement is divided, we
are
> subject to being conquered - just as surely as the Sunni and the
Shia.
> It is
> time for the Democratic Party to serve the Peace Movement and not
the
> other
> way around. We shall see what course UFPJ takes to turn this
around.
Dear Ron,
Yes; without much support. But, perhaps it would be worth bringing up
his name again. Thanks.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "tradergroupe"
<tradergroupe@...> wrote:
Dear Marcy;
Has anyone inquired as to whether Steve Kubby might be interested?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@>
wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for the article! So that we Libertarians do not feel so
bad,
> UFPJ is endorsing the mostly Libertarian Peace Rally on March 19.
And
> BTW, The Stop Funding the War Coalition racked its brain trying
to
> think of Libertarians who would/could speak exclusively on the
war,
> and came up with only one, Raimondo, who graciously accepted the
> invitation to speak at the Rally. Suggestions welcome!!
>
> Marcy
>
>
> >
> > From my friend Mesha in the Bayview.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Iolmisha@ [mailto:Iolmisha@]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:14 PM
> > To: undisclosed-recipients
> > Subject: ???
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/poprogress/message/25290;_ylc=X3oDMTJya
> TR
> >
>
kNzdiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE4MTU3MjcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzOTg1BG1zZ
> 0l
> > kAzI1MjkwBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzNzY2ODk->
> >
> > Posted by: "bob" bobo926@
> > <mailto:bobo926@?Subject=%20Re%3ANader%20and%20Libertarians%2
> > 0Not%20Welcome> bobz640 <http://profiles.yahoo.com/bobz640>
> >
> > Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:32 am (PST) February 12, 2007
> >
> > Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
> > A Splintered Antiwar Movement
> >
> > By John Walsh
> >
> > The roster of speakers for the UFPJ demonstration in Washington
> D.C. on
> > January 27 speaks volumes. The key was not so much who was
included
> but
> > who
> > was not. The list of speakers certainly had a lot of wonderful
> activists
> > in
> > the peace movement, but to a considerable degree it was a line-
up
of
> > Democrats and movie stars.
> >
> > Ralph Nader, who was in Washington that weekend, was pointedly
not
> > invited
> > to speak. On Saturday night Nader was reportedly inquiring of
other
> > independents just who had been invited to speak among their
growing
> > number.
> > Imagine that; the only antiwar candidate in the 2004 elections
was
> not
> > an
> > invited speaker, even though he and Cindy Sheehan drew
tremendous
> > applause
> > at the last mass rally in 2005 (Notice how these rallies occur
now
> only
> > in
> > only non-election years, nicely tailored to get activists to
work
> for
> > Dems,
> > but not to pressure the Dems to take a strong anti-war stand.)
The
> > non-invitation removed Nader from the movement every bit as
> effectively
> > as
> > the censors armed with air brushes removed dissidents in
> the "socialist"
> > Czech republic chronicled by Milan Kundera.
> >
> > Nor was there anyone who spoke
> > as a representative of the Green Party, even though at least
one
> speaker
> > was
> > in fact a Green and even though an informal survey showed an
> enormous
> > number
> > of people in the crowd were Greens or Green sympathizers. Yes,
the
> > Greens
> > were "permitted" a feeder march but their only organized
presence
> on the
> > Mall that this writer could find was a small card table with
three
> women
> > staffing it.
> >
> > There was not a single Libertarian speaker even though the
> Libertarians
> > and
> > Old Right have been far more outspoken in opposing the war than
the
> > liberal
> > "Left."
> > Compare the pages of The American Conservative or Antiwar.com
with
> > the editorials of The Nation, which endorsed the pro-war Kerry
> candidacy
> > in
> > 2004. This writer tried for months to get Ron Paul, the
> > Libertarian/Republican Congressman from Texas, now a Republican
> > presidential candidate, invited to speak at the rally and did
so
> also in
> > 2005. Several of us made an appeal to get Justin Raimondo, the
> > Libertarian editor of
> > Antiwar.com invited to speak.
> >
> > We got no response from UFPJ, and still have
> > received none.
> > In contrast, Raimondo advertised the UFPJ demonstration in a
> > prominent place on his web site, and he even offered to pay his
own
> air
> > fare
> > to D.C. to speak. But no response was forthcoming from whatever
> > committee
> > decides on the speakers, a committee which is none too visible.
> UFPJ was
> > just plain rude to Raimondo. In general it appears that the
liberal
> > "Left"
> > has scant knowledge about the Libertarians and less desire to
> acquire
> > it.
> > Libertarians are just "a bunch of selfish people," according to
the
> PC
> > liberals. But there are more things in heaven and earth than
the
> very PC
> > have dreamed of.
> >
> > There were far fewer kaffiyas in evidence than in the past, the
> > inevitable
> > result of reading ANSWER out of the official antiwar movement.
(To
> be
> > fair,
> > Noura Erekat and Joshua Reubner, both from the same
organization,
US
> > Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, spoke.)
> >
> > The only reason given for UFPJ's severing relations with ANSWER
is
> that
> > their members were "impossible to deal with in meetings." That
is
> hardly
> > a political reason. Bad manners are not a reason for
> excommunication. If
> > so, the antiwar forces would not be talking to the crotchety
Barney
> > Frank. I do not know a lot about ANSWER, but I do have a great
deal
> of
> > respect for Ramsey Clark, one of its leaders.
> > And I also have a lot of respect for ANSWER's ability to turn
out
> young
> > people and its boldness in organizing events like the
demonstration
> > against Bush on the occasion of his inauguration. At the
> demonstration I
> > heard no mention of AIPAC's obvious role in ginning up the war
on
> Iraq
> > or Iran. At this point in the development of the movement after
the
> > paper of Measheimer and Walt and
> > after Jimmy Carter's book, this is indeed a troubling omission.
> >
> > What is the matter with Democratic politicians, you may say.
> Nothing, as
> > such. And the politicians speaking at the rally were among the
best
> that
> > the
> > timid Dems have to offer - Maxine Waters, John Conyers and
Dennis
> > Kucinich,
> > for example. But these Democrats do not represent the
Democratic
> Party;
> > they
> > are an idealistic few on its fringe. To have only Democrats and
no
> > others is
> > to create the false impression that the Democratic Party is a
> vehicle
> > for
> > peace. And it creates false hopes about what the Dems will do
> without
> > mighty
> > pressure.
> >
> > So the peace movement is being increasingly tied to the
Democratic
> > Party.
> > This is certainly the strategy of MoveOn.org and of "P"DA
> ("Progressive"
> > Democrats of America) - and now apparently also UFPJ. This may
be
> why
> > the
> > rally seemed far smaller and certainly far less spirited,
stodgy
I
> would
> > say, than in the past.
> >
> > Let's hope that the hard working and committed people
> > working in UFPJ turn from this path and do more to bring the
> splintered
> > movement together. Because if the antiwar movement is divided,
we
> are
> > subject to being conquered - just as surely as the Sunni and
the
> Shia.
> > It is
> > time for the Democratic Party to serve the Peace Movement and
not
Marcy,
It seems to me that any Libertarian who can do public speaking, could exclusively speak on "the" war. I would gladly volunteer to do it myself, were my personal position in synch with that of the party on this issue. You've run for office and spoken at public community events during that process. So have Phil Berg, Mike Denny, and Chris Maden, just to name the former candidates in our local group who immediately come to mind. All of you are anti-intervention. Surely any one of you could compile enough talking points on U.S. government involvement in Iraq to give a credible speech on the issue.
So what if you're not as high profile as somebody like Peter Camejo? One of the ways you get to be high profile is by giving speeches at events like this. If the leftists don't like it, that's their problem. They don't consult us on how to run the rallies they sponsor. When we share billing with people much more high-profile than we are, that's a win for us! What's not to like about it?
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Hi Starchild,
I like and agree with your comment that to become a high profile
speaker you would have to start somewhere as a low profile one!
However, the SFTW Coalition voted to invite only the high profile
ones. (And, as a result, the Rally will have a decidedly Green
coloring.)
Marcy
Marcy,
It seems to me that any Libertarian who can do public
speaking, could
exclusively speak on "the" war. I would gladly volunteer to do it
myself, were my personal position in synch with that of the party
on
this issue. You've run for office and spoken at public community
events
during that process. So have Phil Berg, Mike Denny, and Chris
Maden,
just to name the former candidates in our local group who
immediately
come to mind. All of you are anti-intervention. Surely any one of
you
could compile enough talking points on U.S. government involvement
in
Iraq to give a credible speech on the issue.
So what if you're not as high profile as somebody like Peter
Camejo?
One of the ways you get to be high profile is by giving speeches at
events like this. If the leftists don't like it, that's their
problem.
They don't consult us on how to run the rallies they sponsor. When
we
share billing with people much more high-profile than we are,
that's a
win for us! What's not to like about it?
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for the article! So that we Libertarians do not feel so
bad,
> UFPJ is endorsing the mostly Libertarian Peace Rally on March 19.
And
> BTW, The Stop Funding the War Coalition racked its brain trying to
> think of Libertarians who would/could speak exclusively on the
war,
> and came up with only one, Raimondo, who graciously accepted the
> invitation to speak at the Rally. Suggestions welcome!!
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > From my friend Mesha in the Bayview.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Iolmisha@ [mailto:Iolmisha@]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:14 PM
> > To: undisclosed-recipients
> > Subject: ???
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/poprogress/message/25290;_ylc=X3oDMTJya
> TR
> >
>
kNzdiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE4MTU3MjcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzOTg1BG1zZ
> 0l
> > kAzI1MjkwBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzExNzEzNzY2ODk->
> >
> > Posted by: "bob" bobo926@
> > <mailto:bobo926@?Subject=%20Re%3ANader%20and%20Libertarians%2
> > 0Not%20Welcome> bobz640 <http://profiles.yahoo.com/bobz640>
> >
> > Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:32 am (PST) February 12, 2007
> >
> > Nader and Libertarians Not Welcome
> > A Splintered Antiwar Movement
> >
> > By John Walsh
> >
> > The roster of speakers for the UFPJ demonstration in Washington
> D.C. on
> > January 27 speaks volumes. The key was not so much who was
included
> but
> > who
> > was not. The list of speakers certainly had a lot of wonderful
> activists
> > in
> > the peace movement, but to a considerable degree it was a line-
up of
> > Democrats and movie stars.
> >
> > Ralph Nader, who was in Washington that weekend, was pointedly
not
> > invited
> > to speak. On Saturday night Nader was reportedly inquiring of
other
> > independents just who had been invited to speak among their
growing
> > number.
> > Imagine that; the only antiwar candidate in the 2004 elections
was
> not
> > an
> > invited speaker, even though he and Cindy Sheehan drew
tremendous
> > applause
> > at the last mass rally in 2005 (Notice how these rallies occur
now
> only
> > in
> > only non-election years, nicely tailored to get activists to
work
> for
> > Dems,
> > but not to pressure the Dems to take a strong anti-war stand.)
The
> > non-invitation removed Nader from the movement every bit as
> effectively
> > as
> > the censors armed with air brushes removed dissidents in
> the "socialist"
> > Czech republic chronicled by Milan Kundera.
> >
> > Nor was there anyone who spoke
> > as a representative of the Green Party, even though at least one
> speaker
> > was
> > in fact a Green and even though an informal survey showed an
> enormous
> > number
> > of people in the crowd were Greens or Green sympathizers. Yes,
the
> > Greens
> > were "permitted" a feeder march but their only organized
presence
> on the
> > Mall that this writer could find was a small card table with
three
> women
> > staffing it.
> >
> > There was not a single Libertarian speaker even though the
> Libertarians
> > and
> > Old Right have been far more outspoken in opposing the war than
the
> > liberal
> > "Left."
> > Compare the pages of The American Conservative or Antiwar.com
with
> > the editorials of The Nation, which endorsed the pro-war Kerry
> candidacy
> > in
> > 2004. This writer tried for months to get Ron Paul, the
> > Libertarian/Republican Congressman from Texas, now a Republican
> > presidential candidate, invited to speak at the rally and did so
> also in
> > 2005. Several of us made an appeal to get Justin Raimondo, the
> > Libertarian editor of
> > Antiwar.com invited to speak.
> >
> > We got no response from UFPJ, and still have
> > received none.
> > In contrast, Raimondo advertised the UFPJ demonstration in a
> > prominent place on his web site, and he even offered to pay his
own
> air
> > fare
> > to D.C. to speak. But no response was forthcoming from whatever
> > committee
> > decides on the speakers, a committee which is none too visible.
> UFPJ was
> > just plain rude to Raimondo. In general it appears that the
liberal
> > "Left"
> > has scant knowledge about the Libertarians and less desire to
> acquire
> > it.
> > Libertarians are just "a bunch of selfish people," according to
the
> PC
> > liberals. But there are more things in heaven and earth than the
> very PC
> > have dreamed of.
> >
> > There were far fewer kaffiyas in evidence than in the past, the
> > inevitable
> > result of reading ANSWER out of the official antiwar movement.
(To
> be
> > fair,
> > Noura Erekat and Joshua Reubner, both from the same
organization, US
> > Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, spoke.)
> >
> > The only reason given for UFPJ's severing relations with ANSWER
is
> that
> > their members were "impossible to deal with in meetings." That
is
> hardly
> > a political reason. Bad manners are not a reason for
> excommunication. If
> > so, the antiwar forces would not be talking to the crotchety
Barney
> > Frank. I do not know a lot about ANSWER, but I do have a great
deal
> of
> > respect for Ramsey Clark, one of its leaders.
> > And I also have a lot of respect for ANSWER's ability to turn
out
> young
> > people and its boldness in organizing events like the
demonstration
> > against Bush on the occasion of his inauguration. At the
> demonstration I
> > heard no mention of AIPAC's obvious role in ginning up the war
on
> Iraq
> > or Iran. At this point in the development of the movement after
the
> > paper of Measheimer and Walt and
> > after Jimmy Carter's book, this is indeed a troubling omission.
> >
> > What is the matter with Democratic politicians, you may say.
> Nothing, as
> > such. And the politicians speaking at the rally were among the
best
> that
> > the
> > timid Dems have to offer - Maxine Waters, John Conyers and
Dennis
> > Kucinich,
> > for example. But these Democrats do not represent the Democratic
> Party;
> > they
> > are an idealistic few on its fringe. To have only Democrats and
no
> > others is
> > to create the false impression that the Democratic Party is a
> vehicle
> > for
> > peace. And it creates false hopes about what the Dems will do
> without
> > mighty
> > pressure.
> >
> > So the peace movement is being increasingly tied to the
Democratic
> > Party.
> > This is certainly the strategy of MoveOn.org and of "P"DA
> ("Progressive"
> > Democrats of America) - and now apparently also UFPJ. This may
be
> why
> > the
> > rally seemed far smaller and certainly far less spirited,
stodgy I
> would
> > say, than in the past.
> >
> > Let's hope that the hard working and committed people
> > working in UFPJ turn from this path and do more to bring the
> splintered
> > movement together. Because if the antiwar movement is divided,
we
> are
> > subject to being conquered - just as surely as the Sunni and the
> Shia.
> > It is
> > time for the Democratic Party to serve the Peace Movement and
not
> the
> > other
> > way around. We shall see what course UFPJ takes to turn this
around.
I'm sorry to hear such a vote was taken. Only inviting high profile speakers sounds similar to only inviting or interviewing high profile candidates. This is the standard typically used by the mainstream media, hence the difficulty Libertarian candidates often have in getting coverage.
One way to help balance the Green colored rally you appear to be heading toward, would be to have a Libertarian MC who announces each speaker, perhaps makes a few comments here and there, and acts as the primary voice of the event. Marc Joffe would seem like the logical person to do this, if he's willing.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>