From: cts@dragon.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: AGRAN -- re Presidential Candidate Dragged Off by Police Goons
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:35:13 GMT
Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited

In article <9204060524.AA05459@tba.msi.cornell.edu>, harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
> To the Stalinist to said Agran deserved this because of Clinton
> getting heckled by Agran supporters (disrupting Clinton's speech oh
> my)

Stalinist?  No, no, Harel, a stalinist is on the political left.  Given
your support for most things socialist, and looting from those who
produce, I'd think you'd be acknowledging stalinists as your political
allies rather than as an accusation.  In any event, you can call me
a pro-business conservative, which, I'm sure, in your lexicon, is
at least as nasty a label as you intended Stalinist to be.

Now, as for what Agran does, or does not deserve, I really don't
care, personally, whether he's in any debates or not.  From the little
I've seen, the man is so far left of center, he has less chance of 
winning the presidency than Teddy Kennedy;  his views represent 
such a narrow segment of the public, I can hardly blame the national
pa, who have stated a goal of reclaiming mainstream voters, keeping
him at arms length.

Now, again, it was Agrans supporters in NY who disrupted Clinton's
song and dance, not the canidate himself.  Now, of course, you disagree
with Clintons views, so its OK to disrupt his talks, right?  In any
case, this is hardly the type of tatic that makes points with the
national party.
 
> (1)In case there are elementary schools with UseNet access now, I
> might point out to them that Agran's supports do not equal "if that's
> how AGRAN wants it"

Yep;  however, by their actions, they show that they are the type of
people that the national party wants to distance itself from;  this,
right or wrong, reflects back on the canidate.

Just as the Willie Horton ads were produced by "an independant"
group...
 
> (2)If Clinton is upset at Agran for any reason (e.g., more likely than
> getting heckled, not doing well in the debates in which Agran was
> included), that does not excuse him from his guilt and complicity by
> silence, going along with anti-democratic exclusion of a Candidate and
> now dragging off and arresting this fellow presidential candidate
> Clinton was all too aware of whose identity, having debated Agran
> along with Brown on more than one occassion(*), as he quietly watched
> Agran being forcefully dragged off by the anti-demoratic goon squad.

Why does being a canidate give Agran a right to ride the National
Party bandwagon.  I don't recall anyone stopping Agran from campaigning.
I don't recall anyone forcing the media from selling him ad space and
ad time.  However, the national party has the right to support whatever
canidates they feel like;  they have the right to expend their funds,
time, etc on canidates that they feel would enhance the partys image.
Since it was their party, they can invite who they want.  You seem to
think that Agran, because he is a declared canidate, should automatically
be granted the keys to the national democratic treasury.

Under some circumstances, like a publically funded debate, I could
see that Agran had some claim to be included;  however, I could
also acknowlege that if every minor canidate could demand inclusion,
they system would break down...  be kind of hard to hold a debate
with 50 canidates, including Frank Zappa, Bozo et all.  

Further, does this mean if someone like Gus Hall or David Duke 
decided to run as Democrats, they should get automatic access
to all party events.
 
> (3)Re Agran doing some event on his own -- see Smith's comments re
> "separate but equal" in the short blurb just posted.

Seems fair enough.  If he and his supporters can do it, more power
to him.  If not, take it as a statement that his views are too 
narrow to enjoy wide support.
 
> (4)Are UseNet readers supposed to be too stupid to connect this
> heckling of Clinton with his *earlier* compliticy and silence about
> Agran's exclusion? 

No, they just see the democratic machine operating as normal.  If you
want the support of the party machine, you kiss its collective backside.
Otherwise, you'd best have wide public support a la Jimmy Carter.


> Reminds me of the "proof" that Agran was not
> treated unfairly by the media citing Agran's poor showing in the NH
> primary -- as I said, the poster must have assumed the his readers to
> be too stupid to connect Agran's poor showing with the complete media
> black out which preceded it, and which *followed* a fairly strong
> showing by Agran in a poll relative Brown and Harkin.

I've seen a fair amount of coverage on CNN recently;  I admit, most
of it on the disruptive actions of his followers.  However, as much
as a liberal bias as I see in the media, I also see a need for some
filtering.  If all 60 plus canidates for president got equal coverage,
it would frankkly be a disservice.  While Agran might have scored
some points in NH due to blowing most of his campain funds there
(though how much milage you'd claim for showing in the back of the
pack I'm not sure), he does not seem to have a viable national following.
 
> (*) (of course where Agran was included was not the very
> high-visibility debates the "Democratic" part operatniks manage but
> lower level ones, or as Steve Smith puts it, "Larry has been blacked
> out by the Democratic National Committee and the national media,
> although a few honest party leaders at the local level have seen to it
> that Larry is included in their events.")
> 
That's one of the downsides to having parties, I guess.  
> 
> 
> ##################################################################
> (Re "goons" -- wait will I post more detailed descript of arrest I
> just got)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc