The prominent Montana liberal blog “Left In the West” once referred to me as a “Kelleher fan”.  It’s mixed.  I am one that takes an interest in perenial oddball candidates — those people who throw out their good money to put their name onto the ballot as a sort of hobby, maybe they have some ideas they wish to float out and maybe they don’t. Relating to Kelleher versus Baucus, I was something of a Baucus basher as much as a Kelleher fan — though, not in any major way, ala: I’m not going to seriously contemplate a Kelleher Senate victory.  It was what it was.

Bob Kelleher was an accidental Republican nominee, the vaguely familiar name out of a few no names with dented reputations.  It is probably unkknowable what motivated Kelleher to run as a Republican after fourteen runs as a Democrat or Green, but it worked out electorally for him.  He got himself a major party statewide nomination with it.  It is the same logic that worked for Max Baucus, who reportedly started his career by asking which party would get him elected.

The Health Care process is apparently one where several Senate committees create a bill, and these bills will through some unholy process just be smashed and collided together to form something.  Max Baucus is now the chief architect of one that is being summarily booed.  Instructive would be to compare it with the Bob Dole proposals of 1993 — 1994, and on to Bill Maher’s comments about the Democrats having moved right while the Republicans have moved into a bin, and Michael Steele’s comment that the co-op is a backdoor to that dreaded public option, interesting because the public option was always a back-door to Single-payer, leaving me to wonder what might be offered to gain Olympia Snowe’s vote which would fail to do so because of it being a back-door to a dreaded Co-op.

Curiously, Fox News went ahead and designated Max Baucus with the “R”.  It is a bit reminescent of this comment.  I am one willing to treat Fox News as something to study in a Sovietology manner — they have a history of designating unworthy Republicans with the “D” label.  This may as well mean some sort of cryptic support for Baucus’s Health Insurance Industry Protection Racket.

The question popping up in my mind: let’s say Mr. Kelleher had won this senate seat.  Then what?  We’d have a nutty and curmudgeonly socialist in the Republican party, probably ineffective as all gets out and with anti-abortion rhetoric that would forbid him from supporting anything the Democrats spit out on Health Care.  The Senate Finance Committee would fall to — quick: who’s the ranking member, Kent Conrad or Jay Rockefellar?  Might the addition by subtraction put us all in good stead?

There was a school bus fight a day or two ago.  The remarkable thing about this fight was that it made national news.  Drudge blared it and it reverberated through the AM radio dial and conservative blogs.

School bus fights should be something in everybody’s life experience, I would think.  They probably happen more in some places moreso than others.  I remember one time when I saw a rather inexplicable fight on a school bus.  It was a beating, not a real fight.  I nor any other bystander knew the background of this thing.  Police were called.  The bystanders were asked what happened.  Presumably things were sorted out, the instigator punished.  No national news was made.  No local news was made.

Then again, nobody cheered it on.  The cheering on was reserved for the school yard fights.  The school yard fights were interesting things — they occured in clusters at the beginning of the school year in September and toward the end of the school year in May.  A fight would break out.  Someone would shout out “FIGHT!”.  And a swarm of a crowd would rush in.  One of the school’s two security officers would rush over and break it up.  This was followed by a sort of generalized pooh-poohing by the teachers in the classroom and a short lecture to the effect that we’re all better than that, which obviously “we” weren’t.   (Maybe I was.  I came fairly quickly to not swarm.)

Given this sort of thing, this comment strikes a bad chord:

We just had one of those votes in the House, that sort of meaningless message vote which aligns into two partisan camps.  The Resolution in question:

Whereas on September 9, 2009, during the joint session of Congress convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, the President of the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate, had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson; and

Whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.

240 Yeas, 179 Nays, 5 Presents, 10 Absences.  The interesting ones are the party defectors.  7 Republican Yea votes, 12 Democratic Nay votes, and 5 Democratic Presents. 

Voting Present: Ike Skelton of Missouri, Carol Shea – Porter of New Hampshire, Bill Foster of Illinois, Eliot Engel NY – 17, and Barney Frank.  Barney Frank is the one getting a quote in all the news stories.

  “I think it is bad precedent to put us in charge of deciding whether people act like jerks.”

A good answer.  He knows about decorum and kitchen tables.  (As does Pete Stark… “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg.  It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.”  — Pete Stark)  A pursual of the other four Presents web pages doesn’t reveal any light of any type, and I only recognize two of the names.

A look at the twelve Democratic “No” votes starts off with two members of what I’ll refer to as the “Liberal Fringe” of the Democratic Party: Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and Jim McDermott from Seattle, Washington.  I expect to see some odd ideological combinations with these things, and perhaps to see a couple of the most liberal Democrats joined with a few of the most conservative Democrats.  I am surprised to see three names joining in the party-line vote, but I guess Rules of Decorum prevail for the bluest of the blue dogs.  Purusing the websites, Gene Taylor of Mississippi appears to be on the conservative fringe of the Democratic Party, though I will acknowledge to taking a liking to his press release headline “Americans for Tax Reform:  Lying Sacks of Scum”.  Gwen Moore, Wisconsin 4, appears to be the only black congress member to vote against the act — an interesting item worth some consideration.  Beyond those four, nothing pops out in the others’ websites.  Thera is, for whatever reason, a heavy contingent of New York state detractors.  Michael Acuri, NY 24, loves him some Lockheed Martin.  Daniel Maffei NY 25 may well be so much of a budget hawk that he went ahead and skimped on a web designer.  Maurice Hinchey, NY 22, doesn’t have much interest beyond district lines.  Eliot Engel, NY 17 and a DOMA repealer, and Eric JJ Massa, NY 29, round out New York.  Gabrille Giffords of Arizona believes solar energy will save us all.  Harry Teague of New Mexico wants everybody to drink milk.

With the Republican “yea” voters, we knew Joseph Cao of Louisiana would be in this list.  After him, I can’t really think of any obvious heavily Democratic districts with Republican congress members — those were kind of wiped out in 2006 and 2008.  Bullet point items from Joseph Cao’s website: “Cao Defends Obama’s Right to Address School Children”, “Cao Accepts Offer to meet with Obama, announces Health Care Town Halls”, promoted as “Collaborations with Cao”, and an “interesting” Rachel Maddow Appearance.  Compare that with Dana Rohrabacher, CA 46, whose front page has a video clip from the Glenn Beck show, and appears on a real Illegal Immigration tear.  What motivated Rohrabacher from not rallying behind the “You Lie” which entailed illegal immigration, leave that up to speculation — until you google it up for yourself.

Jeff Flake, a very conservative congress-critter from Arizona, front page tagged with the ACORN scandal, lays his reasoning out here.  I’m not surprised to see Walter Jones — “Freedom Fries” turned war opponent and lunch buddies with Ron Paul — on this list.  The only thing I can say about Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri is that her webpage’s front page soliloquy to high school football causes in me a sadness toward small town life.  Thomas Petri of Wisconsin seems to have no partisan edge.  And Bob Ingliss of Wilson’s very own South Carolina has another one of those bad pages.

After all this, Jimmy Carter jumps in and provides Obama a political headache, and rolls from the tea-bag thingamajing to Representative Wilson:

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American.  I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time … and I think it’s bubbled up to the surface, because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.” 

At a town hall at his presidential center in Atlanta Tuesday, Carter also said Wilson’s outburst — the South Carolina Republican shouted “You lie!” at Obama during his health care address to Congress — was racially motivated. 

“I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said in response to an audience question. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.” 

The quotations from the “Freedom Work”s spokes-people, organizers for the teabag thingys, are interesting in their “See No Evil” approach of the 60K person Washington DC rally:

Adam Brandon, spokesman for protest organizer FreedomWorks, said Carter’s comments were “absurd.” He noted that the protest featured about a dozen black speakers. 
“To say this crowd was racist is absolutely absurd when black speakers were probably the most popular speakers,” he said. 

… Don’t make me surf about for the signs again.

Anyway, I would have preferred Carter held my breah regarding Representative Wilson, Confederate Flag notwithstanding the matters are too entangled and bunched together for effective separation and it’s best to lay Wilson himself out with no racial points, but I don’t have much problem with the statement on the movement beyond him.  On that point, I gather Carter just reminded us that there’s a reason he slid away from the other presidents in that photo-op.

Let’s play Celebrity ASS – OFF.

Contestant Number One:  Michael Jordan.  From Jordan’s “Hall of Fame” speech.  Wherein Michael Jordan expounded on what spurred him on to Greatness.  A long list of people who dissed him throughout his career.  As well, various other sundry grudges that he decided to address.  Two key lines:

Jerry’s not here.  [Jerry Krause; Bulls owner] I don’t know who’d invite him. I didn’t. I hope he understands it goes a long way. He’s a very competitive person. I was a very competitive person. He said organizations win championships. I said, ‘I didn’t see organizations playing with the flu in Utah. I didn’t see it playing with a bad ankle.

AND

“Leroy Smith.  You guys think that’s a myth.  Leroy Smith was a guy that when I got cut he made the team on the varsity team. He’s still the same 6-7 guy, he’s not any bigger and his game is probably the same.

It is more or less a myth – A bit more to that story.

Contestant Number Two.  Kanye West:   Taylor Swift got a surprise when she accepted the award for Best Female Video at Sunday night’s MTV Video Music Awards.

After Swift, looking shocked, beat out Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, Pink and Beyonce for the honor, she took the stage and accepted the award. As she was thanking MTV, Kanye West ran up on stage, took her microphone, and said Beyonce had been robbed for her “Single Ladies” video.

“Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time!”

Swift, 19, stood silently holding her trophy, cameras cut to Beyonce looking stunned in the crowd, and MTV then cut to break.

And ad naseum from there.  A profuse number of apologies.  And one off-the-record comment from the president that nobody should pay any mind to, frankly.  Though, I just did.

Good for all three’s career, I suppose.

Contestant Number three:  Serena Williams.  Poor Sportsmanship.  Common in Tennis.  We just noticed because of her gender.

Williams, 27, says she was “in the moment” and doesn’t really remember her now-famous outburst at a line judge who had called a foot fault. It was a 12-second verbal attack that that has played over and over for three days.

“It was a really tough point in the match and it was really close and, got a really tough call that wasn’t the correct call, and, you know, things got a little heated and I had a conversation with the line judge that didn’t go so well,” Williams told CNN.

Contestant Number Four.  Congress-critter Joe Wilson.  I, frankly, would not be inclined to throw him into the “Celebrity Ass-Off”, except that the “apology” is… um… a fund raising political message.  (Note: I would post a clean feed, but I don’t want to look past the first sure item that appears on a youtube search.)

Who wins?

Bush on Palin:
After Palin’s selection was announced, the same people who demanded I acknowledge the brilliance of McCain’s choice expected the president to join them in their high-fiving tizzy. It was clear, though, that the president, ever the skilled politician, had concerns about the choice of Palin, which he called “interesting.” That was the equivalent of calling a fireworks display “satisfactory.”

“I’m trying to remember if I’ve met her before. I’m sure I must have.” His eyes twinkled, then he asked, “What is she, the governor of Guam?”

Everyone in the room seemed to look at him in horror, their mouths agape. When Ed told him that conservatives were greeting the choice enthusiastically, he replied, “Look, I’m a team player, I’m on board.” He thought about it for a minute. “She’s interesting,” he said again. “You know, just wait a few days until the bloom is off the rose.” Then he made a very smart assessment.

“This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for,” he said. “She hasn’t spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let’s wait and see how she looks five days out.” It was a rare dose of reality in a White House that liked to believe every decision was great, every Republican was a genius, and McCain was the hope of the world because, well, because he chose to be a member of our party.

Watching this video…

I was pretty sure that I had done an different one of these things since this thing, but I can’t find it off-hand.  Ah de well.  Sanford, of course, is out.  The Kid was always a joke of a pick.  Joe The Plumber may finally have exhausted his 15 minutes well enough.  I’m thinking that Michael Steele may just be irrelevant enough.  And, to mull the GQ article is to mull whether we may as well end the door on George W Bush.

Though, Cheney continues to reverberate.

Fill those five seats with some Southern Senators, or a Rick Perry.  And, to mull that video and the Washington DC rally is to state this uncomfortable reality.

Dick Armey would have to fill a slot.  And, in consideration in particular of some of the questions floated out in the  Glen Beck would have to be slotted right in.

An impressive bunch?

Something swirling around my mind a bit, though.  I project somewhere between a small to a mildly large Democratic loss in 2010, and a good sized Obama victory in 2012.  Given that — and things can happen between now and 2010 or 2012, and given the activist Republican base’s projection on where America is with Obama — perhaps to be buoyed by partisan gains in 2010, and perhaps even with a spotted 40s approval rating here or there between now and 2012… and to turn on an am dial of the radio and roll across the dial is to hear one Republican bloviator after another that amplifys their projections on where America stands…

… What does the cognitive dissonance bring?  OR

Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as “Obamacare makes me sick” as they protested the president’s health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.
[…]
Tens of thousands of people converged on Capitol Hill on Saturday to protest against government spending

The contradiction is RIGHT THERE IN THAT ARTICLE!!!

Is it worth looking around at the signage and crowd?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Nineteen out of 20 signs were hand-made. My favorite was “Stop spending our tacos. I love tacos.” The most popular were variations on “Don’t tread on me,” “You lie,” complaints about Obama’s “socialism,” warnings about the 2010 elections, references to the deficit or big spending, critiques of Obamacare, and (especially) cracks about various czars (including not a few that equated czars with Soviet Communism). Godwin’s Corollary was satisfied on multiple occasions, including “Hitler gave great speeches, too,” “the Nazis did national health care first,” and someone comparing Obama’s 2009 with Hitler’s 1939 (alas, we didn’t get to ask him whether America was about to invade Poland). Michael Moynihan did have a nice chat about George Marshall with the fellow holding a sign saying “McCarthy was right.” There was an “Obama bin lyin,” “Feds = treason,” “Birth certificate,” and “Glen Beck for president.” Greatly outnumbering such things were references to the constitution, taking our country back, and so forth.

Okay. Watching the video, I see two signs right off the bat worth noting. The “WWHD” sign and the “Stalin Called — He Wants His Policies Back”. The “WWHD” sign is informative, only inasmuch as I’ve seen this striking argument from the Freedom Works head — Dick Armey– and yesterday in the National Review blog — “Source for all that these guys” – and then spotting the counter-veiling Hitler stuff.  The “Stalin Called” is interesting because we’re just sort of merging everyone into one pile. I suppose we have in Obama a one man renewed Germany — Russia Pact?

… Also… Wait. What’s that sign? Ohmygosh, it’s a Giant Photo of Sarah Palin!!!

As media events go, Obama has rebounded a bit since August.  To feed the media, you have to spit out counterveiling events so you get “your side” into the same story.  Hence, Obama runs over and has a rally in Minnesota.  It is for Obama “On the job Training”, I suppose, hiking up that learning curve.

… Then again, the larger war protests of the 2002 – 2003 era were downplayed in the media compared to this — Front Page here, some pages in for them.  There’s a double-edged sword to this thesis working here, I gather… note for sake of partisan comparisons: the giant photograph of Sarah Palin, and note: name a  politician that might’ve been spotted in one 2002’s crowds?

Regarding the whole “9/12 Movement” of one Mr. Beck, one major organizing force standing behind these things, the stated purpose for Glenn Beck around which to: “bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States, or political parties. We were united as Americans.”  This is malarkey.  It’s “Unity” as defined by that.  I find this paleo-conservative’s defense of Beck off point, only partially fine with regards to the “From his perspective” I try to strive for in these types of cases.  9/12 — the date most conducive to perpetuating the War State and the Security State (Patriot Act).

I’m part of the 9/13 Movement.  That would be an extra day to line up some “Upon further reflection”, “Upon further perspective”.

It’s THEIR health care bill:

Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Tom Carper of Delaware, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

The current legislative process has unravelled to the point where a filibuster proof 60 is necessary to put something through.  And these are the 60 Senators leading up to that number 60.  The tail that wags the dog.  Their interests are catered to, their concerns dealt with.  In the classic Senate strategum that held that there were 40 intense partisans on either side, and twenty Senators in the middle who’d end up “getting things done”, these would be your twenty.

Another way of looking at them is from the comparison of the Lyndon Johnson Experience that is in vogue. “Civil Rights” had to be “built on”. Johnson got through a bill in 1957 framed from what the Southern Dixiecrat Chairmen would let him get away with. And Strom Thurmond peed off stage in his filibuster, or something?

The finest point comes with Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe.  Snowe is the one Republican Obama has swirling around these mixes.  And, if I’m reading this right, Snowe’s big concern is…

Speculation is that Snowe is afraid to be the sole Republican on the bill and feels she needs a concrete concession on the price tag in order to justify her involvement.

FANTASTIC!  If that sounds ridiculous — Olympia Snowe wants to not be the only Republican Senator to vote for this for the sake of not being the only Republican Senator to vote for this, I can point out that Obama has wandered around with the same mindset, as has the Baucus Finance Committee.  The problem for Snowe is her Republican Caucus is down to that magic 40 number of irretractibles.  Her game is thrown off filter.

For what it’s worth, Olympia Snowe makes Senator #61 here.  Ben Nelson is Senator #60.  And I take his “Game Changer” statement , never mind the following equivacations, to mean he could be catered to.  Meaning, I guess, it’s Ben Nelson’s bill — followed by the other sixteen off of that list.  Just drop that arbitrary $100 Billion, and we should have the Ben Nelson Health Care Act pronto!

The Drudge-i-verse spit out the headline “YOU LIE!” following Obama’s health care speech.  Looking down further, I caught the further glimpse of the snap-shot of where the Conservative Movement is at the moment:  there was a link to an item about Janet Napalitano rounding up Girl Scouts for the government indoctrination.

Replete with scary photograph of Napalitano with Girl Scout troupe.  Everything is topsy turvy, isn’t it?  We are in a bit of John Birch, or the modern equivalent of the (still existent) Birch Society — the Alex Jones Show arena.  Take, for instance:

From “Crooks and Liars“:

But he certainly made some waves last week when — clearly, and appropriately, disgusted by Jerome Corsi’s bizarre piece in WorldNetDaily suggesting that President Obama was preparing concentration camps to round up and imprison his conservative critics — Henke urged his fellow conservatives to disassociate themselves from WND in every way possible.

This is, frankly, an oldie.  Jones has drummed at it since at least the Clinton Administration.  I can go back to the 1968 George Thayer book on the political fringe and cull it out from 40 years ago as well.  I think World Net Daily’s Jerome Corsi (cue 2004 presidential campaign for name check) merely cast a partisan hue to the conspiranoia.

For an eye on where Alex Jones is throwing things around, I am similarly confused by this link to this piece.  When I clicked over to “prisonplanet” the other day, the Charlie Sheen Interview with Obama dominated the page.  It was really, really bizarare.  That was a hoax?  I was supposed to believe it?  When I first saw it, I assumed it was a parody in their own visage — which would be acceptable. 

Incidentally, back to Drudge: I see the Homeland Security Wants to Recruit Girl Scouts” story is on now on that Alex Jones page, now that we’ve seen the Charlie Sheenpromotion subside a tad.  (But only a tad.)

And back to Drudge – i-verse, and the celebration of Joe Wilson as the new Joe the Plumber: in retaliation from the liberal blogs, I see an ad for “Censure Joe Wilson”.  Why bother?  I don’t even think pushing  funding for his opposition is all that worthwhile a goal.  He had a close-ish race in one of the last two cycles, and the next one isn’t probably as Democratic a year.  The DCCC just plopped his name on their “Targetted List” for fund-raising pitch reasons now that he’s a name.  Good for the Old Donkey Versus Elephant Show, I guess.

Keith Olbermann, 9-8-09:  First, on this date in 1922 was born one of the greatest American comedic geniuses, Sid Caesar, born the same day, Lyndon LaRouche, now behind some of the Nazi imagery at the health care town halls. The difference between the two men, Sid Caesar realized he was funny.
[Note: corrected transcript, which had the year “1992”.]

My first impulse is to assume that this is false, an item of mild imagination from bystander:
“At the Trader Joe’s in Irvine, the LaRouche Activists wore swastikas, which brought some customers to tears,” according to the complaint.”
But a second thought is that it just might be, along the lines of “Chartor”‘s thought process here.

Leatherstocking Unleashed at Wikipedia!  Searching about for ways to maintain the insertion of the world inside the cult as opposed to the world outside the cult, for instance the confrontation with Lerner.  Which gets him such attention as:

I started watching only after Leatherstocking brought this to the attention of a noticeboard frequent but, since then, I haven’t seen anything egregious from SlimVirgin.Simonm223 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Both Will Beback and SlimVirgin are quite capable WP:FA writers – I am sure they will do fine with the clean-up. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 A bit too easy on him is “Atama“, in describing his possible relationships with sock-puppets.   And yet, Comedy still ensues.  For instance:

“Antony Lerman is in fact an obscure individual, who had no bio at Wikipedia until SlimVirgin authored it[26], shortly after adding multiple references to him at Lyndon LaRouche.  Lerman consequently does not have the wild-eyed public image that Dennis King has.”

The only place King has a “wild-eyed public image” is within the world of Larouche — maybe too the world of Fred Newman, but I don’t much concern myself over there.  In the world at large… well, he’s a fairly obscure individual.

AND
I apologize; I have only limited time each day to participate at Wikipedia, so it is often difficult for me to keep up.
I don’t believe him.  This is a stalling action to impede wikipedia editing.  See also:
“A teqhnique of Larouche’s opponents is to produce a sort of parody of Larouche’s views and then attack the parody as a strawman and if we exclude primary sources, the reader is likely to get a misleading picture of LaRouche’s views.”
Leatherstocking’s comments are pure Comedy Gold!

Leatherstocking delays:
I would like to make one very specific proposal here. It would be helpful to the mediation process if Will would agree to cease making major deletions or other highly controversial edits until the matter is resolved. My limited time is largely taken up trying to keep track of dozens of controversial edits he is making every day. I would prefer to concentrate on the mediation process.

Second, and this applies particularly to the “Views” article, I am concerned that LaRouche’s core views, which as far as I can tell are about economics and science, may be obscured by undue weight given to secondary issues raised by hostile secondary sources. I raise these points simply because I have for two years observed POV warfare at the LaRouche articles, and I believe that misrepresentation of LaRouche’s views is typically the tactic of anti-LaRouche editors. Many of LaRouche’s views are quite peculiar, but they should be given a fair and neutral hearing. And, his track record on economics is good (as the Chinese and Russians seem to delight in pointing out.) —

I suppose the best way to handle that crisis would be to list out the whole list of the annual predicted slides into Economic Dark Ages.  I actually don’t think anything else matters much in this regard.  This, I guess, would be seen by Leatherstocking as “cariacture of his views”, but it would solve his burning issue of this piece of comedy gold:
In this edit, SlimVirgin changes the date of “LaRouche on financial crisis” to 2008, despite the fact that the cited sources indicate that his forecast was made in 2007. Presumably this was done to minimize the significance of the forecast. Incidentally, in looking at Russian press coverage of LaRouche, there is a lot more material available on this topic.

AND , Atama continues:  We shouldn’t “stack the deck” with the views of his enemies, but at the same time we should try to portray the prevailing opinion of Larouche and his ideas. If 9 out of 10 secondary sources are critical then the article should reflect this. Being neutral doesn’t mean that the article should strive to say as much positive about him as negative. Not to be dramatic, or try to equate the two personalities, but look at Adolf Hitler#Legacy.  

Weback:  Regarding the general view of LaRouche, I came across this recent reference to LaRouche by Congressman Ed Royce. While it wouldn’t add it as a source, it’s illustrative of the general view:
The one thing Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Peace and Freedom all agree with is that Lyndon LaRouche is a nut case. [2]
Again, I wouldn’t necessarily add it to an article, but it is an indication of how folks regard LaRouche.  

And then there’s Leatherstocking again:  I will also say, knowing that this is controversial, that the process has been hindered by the banning of knowledgeable pro-Larouche editors who were contributing useful research. I do not have extensive knowledge of LaRouche’s writings or where to look for secondary sources, but I can use Google as well as the next person and perhaps I can contribute something in that regard.
Again, I don’t believe him.
I will confess that I am a bit reluctant, because I am concerned about being labeled “pro-LaRouche” if I add material that appears favorable to LaRouche. From what I have seen, being labeled “pro-LaRouche” leads to bans.
Something about editing against a Kitchen Table applies.

AND  Generally, that would make his views on important issues notable. What constitutes an “important issue” should be a matter of mature editorial judgement. In LaRouche’s particular case, he claims that the media have a policy of suppressing his views selectively (and some of the media appear to cheerfully agree — see Views of Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche vs. the media. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with the idea of making the media the arbiter of which views get covered in Wikipedia.

Good gravy!  It goes on to allow Leatherstocking the out of “no mathmatical foruma” in placing secondary and primary sources.  Which would be okay, if not for the nature of the editing — Leatherstocking will, and does indeed, take this “general rules of principle but no hard Law” as a license to continue as per usual.  Here is the Funniest item, the Gold Standard in Leatherstocking’s little Comedy Routine:

 

Unlike much material here which has little to do with LaRouche personally, the webcasts seem to be an important, professional activity for him and appropriate to a biographical article.
(This was immediately slapped down by two wiki users… While it may be personally important to him, is it important as part of his biography?Seeasea )
To finish theis excursion into wikipedia up:

WB  Regarding the new account, he’s obviously experienced at Wikipedia, and obviously knowledgeable about LaRouche. Doesn’t that make you wonder if it isn’t a returning baned editor, HK, whose used several socks on this article in just the last couple of months?

I can answer that question for him: No.

Let me ask you this: do you accept that the NPOV policy, particularly UNDUE, means we can’t treat LaRouche sources as being on a par with mainstream sources, and that this article must reflect what mainstream sources say, not what LaRouche says? Do you accept that?

I can answer that question for Leatherstocking: No.

The world in which Leatherstocking inhabits can be gleaned from various web droppings of “Wait. Who are these people?” types:

“Are You Brainwashed”?  No.  But you are.  According to Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche, whose assessment is shared by many competent specialists on terrorism and irregular warfare in this country and around the world, what took place was not a terrorist attack, but a strategic, covert special operation,

A must read exchange between Alfred and Archie.  Two highlights:

Alfred:  I have listened to some og LaRouche´s webcasts and I like these ideas a lot.  He is a visionary but realist, a patriot and has a good economic grasp. Why is Larouche not more popular in the US?
He then goes on to partially answer his question.

You are absolutely right, Archie. Transition is always difficult. I think LaRouche has good ideas. Hitler and Schacht got Germany up on her legs with fiat government money which funded autobahns and a lot of other infrastructure without gold, as Germany had no gold.  The real gold in any society is the brains and natural resources. After WW2 Germany had even less gold but rebuilt its shattered, totally bombed economy in express time, with paper money.  Nowadays, with almost all gold in the hands of bankers and Jews, it would have been a gross mistake to restore gold standard. Anybody can see the logic of it, except the Austrians and Paul.

Turns out it was a political group, linked to Lyndon LaRouche, called BüSo.  We chatted with a young partisan of that party and she described their link with the “large US political group which was responsible for the successful mass demonstrations against the death panels.”  We learned that LaRouche is married to a German politician.  We’ll let you know their German polling percentages when we know.

Hint: somewhere in the low hundredth of a percentiles.

This guy thought he was so clever, he rolled this joke out twice.