Redstate

By Gerry Daly Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I get, via email, a copy of The National Journal's daily Blogometer, which is a hand-picked selection of stories, compiled by William Beutler, that are generating buzz on Blogs. Today's mailing has a section on the mock impeachment hearing led by Rep. John Conyers.

What caught my eye was the title Mr. Beutler gave to the section:

CONYERS: Does Anyone Even Remember Conyers Recently Hanging Out With LaRouche?

I cannot speak for everyone, but as for myself I can say that not only did I not remember this, it was completely news to me. The section did not include any links to explain what the title referred to, so I fired up Google. Lo and behold:

That  was then ... and here is how all this ties in to current political events. On Friday, Mississippi State Rep. Fleming [D] announced his candidacy in 2006 against incumbent US Senator Trent Lott [R]. "It is my hope that my candidacy will offer a viable option for those citizens who feel that their concerns are not being met, let alone heard," said Fleming in his written statement. At this point, Fleming is Lott's only Democratic challenger -- and, with Lott looking like a safe bet to win next year, Fleming may remain his only real challenger. Just in case you held out the slimmest glimmer of hope that Fleming could just maybe, kinda, pull off a longshot upset ... did I mention that Fleming is also one of those LaRouche crazies? It's true! He goes on LaRouche sponsored junkets and is regularly featured on various LaRouche websites around  the globe.  Also check out this page from Lyndon LaRouche's 2004 Presidential campaign site: Fleming introduced candidate LaRouche at a campaign rally, described himself there as "involved with Lyn's movement" for many years, praised LaRouche's brief 1986 hostile takeover of the Illinois Democratic Party, and endorsed  the convicted felon as "the most intelligent, most capable person, who can be President of the United States ... the Honorable Lyndon H. LaRouche." He also was one of the signatories of a letter demanding in 2003 that LaRouche be included in the Presidential candidate debates. (FYI: Former US Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders and several other prominent black political leaders also signed the same letter.)

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) -- the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus -- is also now consorting with LaRouche. On March 23, Conyers was the featured speaker at an event in Detroit sponsored by the LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC). Conyers told the audience that he wanted to help them "take these [LaRouche] arguments, the book [LaRouche's Draft Democratic Party Platform], the weekly newsletter, and let's get it out into the debate ... what I would like to do with you, is to begin to debate these issues. I know that they're taken as gospel. But, unless they can stand the test of debate, they're just a great view held by a number of people, who believe one thing. But that's not going to sell it. And so, what I want to do, is, extend the discussion: What we need is discussions about this and where [the Democratic Party is] and where are we going." Others who appeared on the panel with Conyers included the Midwest LPAC coordinator and a leader of the LaRouche Youth Movement. The LaRouchies are already using the Conyers appearance for propaganda purposes to yet again to attempt establishing their legitimacy. They've reprinted it on various websites they control. This wasn't Conyers' first interaction with the LaRouche group, but it is his most overt move. Back in December 2004, Conyers invited LaRouche's group to present political testimony of alleged GOP voter suppression before an unofficial panel he chaired -- and LaRouche in return praised Conyers for doing so. "John Conyers has been playing a key role, and naturally, I'm fully supporting what he's up to," said LaRouche. Read these odious LaRouche comments from over the years (or read more here) and then ask yourself: Is it appropriate for any Democratic officials to attend LaRouche-sponsored events? I think the answer is pretty clear. Perhaps it is time for Congressman Conyers -- after serving 41 years in the House -- to consider retiring in 2006.

Or, perhaps, it is time to ask once again, when does a problem become so large it is impossible to ignore?

Addendum: The guy who made the comments at Conyers' meeting was Ray McGovern. This article by Cliff Kincaid notes:

Another bizarre development is that Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of mostly former CIA employees, has taken sides against the administration. Its spokesman, Ray McGovern, had a 27-year career in the CIA and his articles critical of the administration on various foreign policy issues have appeared in Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), a publication associated with Lyndon LaRouche. McGovern told me that he gave EIR permission to reprint his articles because researchers for LaRouche "do some fairly good work" and he sees "no downside" to them using his material. He claims to know nothing about LaRouche.

That was back in 2003, and obviously the questioning would have given McGovern some knowledge about LaRouche (assuming his denial of knowledge was sincere). Yet, McGovern is still to this day having LaRouche republish his material (scroll down to see "Bolton Nomination: More Than Meets the Eye" by Ray McGovern).

Addendum 2: As it happens, someone challenged Rep. Conyers on his Kos diary about LaRouche using the Politics1 post above. The first reply really caught my eye:

I'd like to comment on this... (4.00 / 6)

I was at a Democrat strategy meeting in Washington state a few weeks ago, and there were several members of the LaRouche youth group in attendance.

I've been quick to dismiss them in the past, but as the strategy meeting progressed, they produced documentation on some of what we were discussing - about Amtrak, and about energy usage and generation.

I had a look. They clearly showed how Amtrak's been gutted in the last few years, and they had hard data on the number of trips lost, number of car trips added, number of airplane trips added. They had suggestions for realistic high-speed rail routes that came from the DOT in 2001. They were level-headed. At first, they wanted to talk about maglev, but I steered them toward conventional high speed rail (there are a number of reasons conventional rail is more attainable), and they listened and learned.

On energy, they used examples from real projects, from Kettle Foods in Oregon to Sustainable Ballard in Seattle, of how decentralization cuts our reliance on foreign oil and increases redundancy, prevents brownouts and cuts pollution. They were talking sense.

I looked through some of their documents on the IMF, on fighting poverty, on sustainability in general, and frankly, while they aren't very good at getting their points across, they're pretty much in line with the rest of us. I welcome them into the party.

Emphasis mine. To be fair, the same person immediately followed up with "LaRouche is racist, and his followers tend to be inflammatory and bigoted. I'm just saying that their platform lines up with a lot of the Democratic party."

But still-- it is interesting to see that the grassroots of the Democrats see themselves as being aligned with the LaRouchies sans the bigotry, and that the LaRouche Youth Movement is being invited to participate in Democrat strategy meetings.

Again, when does a problem become so large that it cannot be ignored?

Addendum 3: Erik Fleming endorsed LaRouche in 2004.

[Cross-posted from my blog.]