>Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>> From: DavidMcR at aol.com
>> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 00:25:43 EST
>> Subject: Memo on the controversy over April 20th
>>
>> Friends, comrades, coworkers,
>>
>> This is some background on conflicts that have emerged over the April 20th
>> rally in Washington. People can send this out to those who may be
>> confused. My interest is NOT in making any points for or against any
>> side, but giving some background. This post is a personal one, the
>> opinions are mine, not necessarily those of the organizations with
>> which I work.
>
>Oh brother, what a bunch of bullshit.
>
>Perhaps McReynolds should step down from his socialist high horse and
>spend some time talking to rank-and-file activists about WWP/IAC/ANSWER.
>He'll find that antipathy towards these groups (actually all front groups
>for the WWP) cuts across the political spectrum. If there is one thing
>that local activists in Washington are unifed about, it's that we are sick
>and tired of the disruptive actions of the WWP/IAC/ANSWER.
McReynolds is a polite, almost genteel fellow. So when he says:
>There are clearly political tensions. The pacifists had been uneasy
>about aspects of the IAC and ANSWER and had been seeking what they
>felt was a less sectarian coalition. That is my view - I am sure
>ANSWER and IAC feel their political positions are correct and the
>rally should reflect those politics. If there hadn't been tensions
>there wouldn't have been two dates in the first place!
>
>Certainly ANSWER deserves credit for canceling its April 27th date.
>But the students, who had initiated the process, did not want a
>"joint rally" because of disagreements.
...he's basically agreeing with you, though he's a bit less given to blunt statements of position than you are, Chuck. I know from having talked to him that he's no fan of sectarian parties.
Doug