Jim Devine wrote:
>
>
> If the rallies get large enough, the politicians will come _despite_
> the ANSWERites.
Yes, with a qualification. The large rallies are necessary first of all to energize local organizers, and the large rallies will themselves begin to have a direct effect on politicians (and the state) when it becomes obvious that they are ONLY the tip of the iceberg, that they reflect major movement throughout the nation.
Of course all the interactions are more than can be caught up in a single e-mail, but a couple may be mentioned. With more vigorous, more experienced local anti-war groups (and with larger coalitions at the local level between anti-war groups and other progressive groups), those groups as a whole will become more aware of the maneuverings that go on 'at the top.' And the effect of this will not be to scare them of either UFPJ _or_ ANSWER but raise the level of indifference that already exists _and_ generate discussion and eventually action around creating national coalitions that better serve interests of the whole movement. One does not fight ANSWER by baiting them but by embracing and smothering them.
And I think we have time for this, and that patience will pay off. The U.S. is not going to 'give up' Iraq easily (under any administration), and we have to think in terms of protracted struggle, not single events. One of the ways an anti-war movement can have an impact is by 'seeding' other kinds of activity that <g> 'annoy' the ruling class.
Carrol
P.S. It's when the politicians _do_ begin to come that we have to be worried. We have to prepare now, at least in our thinking, of how to avoid having the movement made a mere tail of the DP.