Doesn't anyone think ANSWER will die on its own?

[DancingBear]

1) I went to the march not because of ANSWER, but in spite of it. There were 500,000 people there, and probably 450,000 were there thinking they were participating in an anti-war rally. Guess what - they were. I know I was, and I am/was well aware of ANSWER. I had (and still have) enormous reservations about them, but I know one salient thing, and that is this. There is power in numbers. 500,00 people in one place vs. 25,00 people in 20 places. No contest. I needed to do what was best for the anti-war movement, and that was to be a part of a large a group as could be gathered. I had to leave ideological purity on the bench for this one - D.C. was the way to make the message heard.

2) As of today, ANSWER is the organizing force that can get people out in the streets. They have the logistical know-how, the ability to shuffle papers to get permits, the infrastructure to get the message out. I think over time this will change, and that is because:

3) This is growing as an anti-war movement, not a Free Palestine or Free Haiti or Free Willy movement. Let us try and understand this. Families, mothers, soldiers, students - they came out against Bush and the Iraq war. The two are TIED TOGETHER in their minds, and the two are being tied together in the minds of most Americans. Did anyone pick up a Sunday paper that had march coverage, like The Washington Post? Did the headlines say "anti-imperialist" march - of course not, they said "anti-war" march.

As for C-Span - please. We like it, but my recollections do not show it beating college football in its time slot. We gnash our teeth at the coverage, and at the craziness on stage, and we forget one simple thing. No one is watching. Those that believe were in the streets, and those that didn't were hoping Wisconsin would cover the spread. As for those of us political junkies who couldn't get to D.C., I feel your C-Span pain, but that coverage was "if a tree falls in the forest" stuff.

The next march will be laser-beam focused on the war - every news organization that decides to cover it will cover it on those terms. If ANSWER wants to tie other things in, let them try. As Iraq becomes Vietnam, the lessons will be learned, and the movement leaders will be those who best define the message.

No way in hell is that going to be ANSWER.

[blondeatlast]

1. I believe you are right. ANSWER may not have helped the peace cause

on Saturday, but I sincerely doubt they helped their own, either.

Edit: clarity--issues beyond peace, that is.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Hi, DancingBear. Thanks for walking with me and getting me through

the day. I enjoyed every minute, but just couldn't keep going on Sat. My back and legs were aching all the way through yesterday.

[DancingBear]

10. I'm with you

Thankfully we stopped to eat (and sit for a while!) or else my feet would have given their two week's notice. :)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DancingBear]

8. "taking up Bushie causes"

That one is so laughable I'm not even going to bother to respond.

(oops, I just did)

[jonnyblitz]

4. I doubt ANSWER is going anywhere anytime soon.

and if you think there are going to be a bunch of moderates or mainstream establishment types there to jump in to take their place if they DID disappear i would say that is wishful thinking. this sort of movement has always been run by radicals.

[KittyWampus]

5. Martin Luther King & Ghandi Were Radicals? Define Radicals

And since the Left has vast amounts of creative talent in its midst it seems kind of pathetic to say that if ANSWER disappeared there would be noone to step up.

Funny how ANSWER WAS there at the very beginning though.

Where do they get their funding, btw? Nothing like transparency.

[libnnc]

Actually, King early on was a radical

radical enough to be harassed by the FBI. There's a professor at UNC-Greensboro who is writing a book on King's more radical early years.

[KittyWampus]

9. That sounds really, really intereting. What's Your Definition Of Radical

though? It'd seem people might have a variety of opinions on that.

[libnnc]

11. what's your definition?

*radical* meaning someone who was interested in organized labor, communist theories etc? Hell, even Betty Friedan cut her ties with her socialist roots once her vision of the women's movement became front and center in the media. The point is, both King and Friedan felt pressure to "tone down" their public politics. Was that right? I think it's kinda sad to be honest.

[KittyWampus]

12. imo, radical would be breaking down an existent structure to start

from scratch.

it'd be interesting what other DU'ers defintion is.

[DancingBear]

6. No, I'm not saying that

I'm saying that for THIS particular movement, ANSWER will not be a viable entity.

I agree with you 100% on the radical component of ANSWER -that's who they are, and will continue to be. Radical politics is (at times) the shove the ever so gently lurches the behemoth in the direction we prefer it go, so I have no qualms with that.

I just see their importance in regards to this anti-war movement as declining rapidly over the upcoming months.

[moddemny]

13. "if you think there are going to be a bunch of moderates

or mainstream establishment types there to jump in to take their place"


Here we go again, you don't have to leave it too moderates, leave it to the benevolent radicals who wont run around calling for the release of Slobodan Milosevic (only one example of some of ANSWER's distasteful positions)

[KittyWampus]

7. That's a great post Dancing Bear. And Thanks For Being There

this weekend! 500,000 people together is an awesome thing.