LaRouche

[Adam Stevens]

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