>Actually, in substance nothing Corn said was wrong or inaccurate. The venue
>sucked, but as Chuck notes, the truth sucks more. And while Corn can be
>faulted for saying the truth where it can be misused, the movement should
>be criticized for creating the truth in the first place.
I'm all for that. But it's not just that the "venue sucked" - it couldn't be otherwise. You can't go on O'R and say, "These rallies have been organized by Communist sects" and expect to follow that with a "but...." Unless you're very skilled and forceful, that is - and after a year of watching the guy, I haven't seen too many who can do it. Stanley Fish did. But not many. As O'R said many months ago, "The president has an uncomplicated view of the world, and so do I." Unless you're very sharp, you won't be able to make very many points - he'll make them for you, and hammer away. I don't think it's overstating things to say that Corn promoted the cause of imperial war by his appearance.
Doug