LaRouche

Adam Stevens a_ste at uclink4.berkeley.edu
Mon Sep 20 14:07:51 PDT 1999


At 01:00 PM 9/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. This looks like the post that
>>convinced Doug not to have La Rouche.
>>So, Doug, get somebody more worthwhile.
>>Otherwise, you're just a scaredy-cat, :-).
>
>Ha, no, it wasn't fear of a future smear. It's really the "there's no
>such thing as bad publicity" adage applied to LaRouche. I don't want
>to give the guy any publicity. When I interview bourgeois apologists,
>at least I can figure I'm not adding to their exposure. LaRouche,
>though, would probably like to talk to a left audience and I don't
>want to help him out.
>
>Doug>

Well, it's your show, but I think you should let him on. It sounds like you're deciding to censor him for political reasons (not wanting to give him publicity) and that strikes a bad note with me given all we've been through here in Berkeley these past few months. LaRouche is an extremely intelligent, eccentric/odd ball kind of guy who seems to have made enemies with just about everyone. He's not "dangerous" or a fascist, and I think it would be a lively and interesting show.

As an aside, about 3 years ago, I (and some friends) got to meet Ramsey Clark. We were all surprised to learn that Clark was working on an appeal for LaRouche's legal case. He gave us a summary of the case, and while I don't remember the details, it definitely sounded like a politically motivated frame-up.

Adam



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list