Quick!  Bo Gritz!  Dead or Alive?
… Apparently alive.  But the most prominent item on the front of his website is activism on behalf of Terri Schiavo, and surprisingly enough I see I mentioned him on this blog at the time.
After that, the previous item in mainstream press is way back to 1998 when People Magazine printed a blurb about his botched suicide attempt.  I would think that the life travails of Bo Gritz would fall outside the editorial purview of People Magazine, but then I guess I would be wrong.

I mention Bo Gritz as his name popped up in the comments section of this Cracked article on “Craziest Presidential Candidates” — “Craziest Presidential Candidates” — a list I didn’t post here even if it fits my focus on Lyndon Larouche as I found the whole thing rather pedestrian.  I must note that Cracked, like Christian Science Monitor and like the Weekly World News — has euphemistically shifted to a “web based strategy” — ie:  stopped printing.  Interestingly, the Lyndon Larouche organization was ahead of this trend when they axed 21st Century Science and Technology, so those guys are trailblazers after all.

A comment in the wikipedia discussion of Bo Gritz:  I remember a virtual media blackout of Gritz during the 1992 Presidental race.  Which is the bane of all the third party candidates for president — that there media black-out — in Gritz’s case, the difficulty of taking seriously a presidential bid aimed at the Survivalist / Milita movement which made a detour to negotiate with Randy Weaver in his stand-off with the government at Ruby Ridge..  Well, leaving aside the odd mention of a figure not listed by Cracked, I can turn to a figure that was listed by Cracked, and the comments he inspired.  To the man mentioned in the article itself and his proported “stand-off”, I think dzieger’s post is off, maybe:

dzieger
My wife and I used to stay at a Bed & Breakfast in Purcelville, VA in ahouse previously owned by Larouche’s organization. When the current owners were rennovating the property, they found a floor plan that labeled each room’s function. Of the approximately 15 rooms, around 10 were labeled “gun storage.”

Off, probably.  Forward to dzieger’s next sentences, and we see how Larouche can get any space anywhere at all.
And honestly, would any of these psychos have been any worse than what we’ve had for the last 8 years?
The answer, of course, is yes.  To see how Larouche would run the national government, see how he runs his organization.  Basically as   A Totalitarian State, with our military being rolled into Great Britain. *

Posted on 11/4/2008 7:01:07 AM

 redjimmy
As for LaRouche and the ultimate crime of ‘Capital H, Holocaust denial(tm)’…well he has plenty of genuinely nutty conspiracy theories. No need to bring out the politically incorrect stuff to condemn him. After all, you won’t be jailed for questioning the moon landings, but don’t mess with the magical 6 million figure or you may find yourself being extradited to Germany. “5,999,999? Oy Vey! Seize him!”

Seems like a weird concern for someone to have.  But then again, so does the fight to get “balance” between “the pro-Larouche fanatics” and the “anti-Larouche fanatics” in the wikipedia article on the Larouche Youth Movement, the concern of “leatherstocking” (have you taken the leatherstocking challenge?) and Macwhirr.  Neither of whom are followers of Larouche, mind you, just… for some strange reason… concerned that the wikipedia article represents the relentlessly covered Larouche coverage on the LYM as much as the sparodic coverage elsewhere.  Because that’s a common concern for Mr. Joe Sixpack.

What this article lacks is a factual report of the WLYM’s activities and a viewpoints. It is dominated by the point of view of other groups that oppose the WLYM. Also, it is difficult for genuinely anti-establishment groups like the WLYM to get honest press coverage, because the press represents the establishment and the establishment will defend its interests through blackouts and scandal-mongering. For a straightforward account of the groups activities and goals, you would have to go to the group itself, where you will get an account that cannot be challenged. […]  It’s not a question of telling readers what the organization thinks of itself. It is a political organization, and is worthy of note because it has a substantial following, and it has a following because people agree with its goals and principles.

“Substantial following”.  Well, you know, for an article like this one the one way to circumvent the — um — “Media Blackout” (snicker) is to roll through blog commentary of impressions on meeting with them.

By “opposing groups” I don’t mean the mainstream media, by which I assume you mean the Washington Post. The other sources are mostly either college papers or activist/journalists like LaRouche himself. It is the activist/journalists that I was mainly referring to, such as Avi Klein, who comes from the neoconservative movement.

Well, this guy has read the directive “talking points” from out of Larouche-ville, though he failed to mention the “Mossad” connection — or is that just understood with this particular usage from this particular use for the phrase “neoconservative movement”?  Avi Klein recently had a short piece about Max Baucus published in the Washington Monthly — I don’t think Avi Klein deserves a fate of being referenced perpetually as having written a focus on Larouche — so, perhaps, Max Baucus critic Avi Klein.  That’ll change google dynamics!

One last note in the realm of wikipedia — in the discussions for larouche himself, we have a statement

As an American i feel compelled to add the word fringe so that people from other countries know where this guy stands in mainstream culture. I was tempted to use the word obscure rather than fringe, but he did attract a moderate amount of attention at one time. He is to politics what Fred Phelps is to religion. Paliku (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How presumptuous of you to think that because you read the mighty American press you know more about LaRouche than people from other countries. We’re not talking Britney Spears here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.90.216 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)You got that right.  People know who Britney Spears is.

…………………………
* Recent statement:  “Where do you put your troops?,” LaRouche asked in conclusion. “On whose border do you do it? You set them up on the British border! The British drug lords’ border! And, keep the pressure going in that direction.”

Curiously enough, this piece of interview with larouche defending his Guilty Verdict and Prison sentence showed up.   Why would it turn up at this particular junction?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm and is filed under The LaRouche Challenge, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.