> The whole "no one can condemn rally organizers" means that anytime a major
> Democratic Party Congressman or local club gets involved in a protest, any
> group that has condemned the Dems would be barred under such rules.
-Oh, BOSH. Please don't make us out to be the Spartacist League. Don't you -think we can tell the difference between Cynthia McKinney and Richard -Gebhardt? Of course the Democratic Party is an imperialist party, -nationally.
But what if Gephardt or Jesse Jackson Jr. don't agree with you that all their colleagues are imperialist, and they say that anyone who has condemned their organization, the Democratic Party, may not speak at a rally they participate in? Could any labor leader say that those who attacked the AFL-CIO on their trade policies (such as in regard to China) could be barred from any rally involving globalization which they endorse?
Would that be acceptable?
Let's be clear in the double standard involved. Sectarian groups maintain the right to continually label any mainstream group or party "racists", "imperialists" or whatever, but if anyone like Michael Lerner labels such a sectarian group "anti-semetic" or whatever, that is thereby deemed "red-baiting" or otherwise a violation of left civic values.
Frankly, my viewpoint is those who organize a rally have the right to bar whoever they want from speaking. It's their rally and more power to them. But the choices they make mean that I'll feel free to judge them and condemn them for the censorship choices they make.
Comparing the speakers at NYC's UFPJ Saturday rally to the shrunken narrow group of sectarians I heard when I was down in ANSWER's DC rally last November just highlights why I think ANSWER is such a blight on the movement and why I'm celebrating after Saturday my hopes for their marginalization from now on.
-- Nathan Newman