Kesha Rogers' Support of Lyndon LaRouche is Despicable

0 Flares 0 Flares ×

This Saturday, the State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC) met in Austin for one of their regular meetings. During the meeting, a resolution was proposed (and passed) simply stating that the SDEC/TDP will not require any Democratic nominee, officer, candidate, member, or official to support anyone who associates with Lyndon LaRouche or the LaRouche movement. (Download the full resolution, or read it below the fold).

In essence, it gives cover to any local Democrat in CD-22 who doesn't want to support Keesha Rogers.

Now, there are some Democrats arguing that what the SDEC did amounted to “McCarthyism.” Those Democrats almost exclusively are (A) lifelong critics of the TDP/SDEC and will always find something to complain about, and/or (B) have no idea what the LaRouche movement that Kesha Rogers supports is actually like. I thought it would be worth sharing, for those who aren't familiar:

From, the story: Lyndon LaRouche: Man of Vision or Venom?

Sexism and Misogyny

Women in the LaRouche organization at the time report they were verbally attacked in long criticism sessions as “witches,” and “sadistic bitches” and were accused of “mother-dominating” the male members.


LaRouche and some of his followers spread racist ideas that range from the absurd-such as the claim that Black musicians did not invent Jazz-to the crude, as in the question posed by LaRouche in one essay: “Can we imagine anything much more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?” It's not just Blacks LaRouche has a problem with. He has dismissed rural Chinese culture as “hideous muck” with its people “paralleling the behavioral stagnation of lower animal life.” Elsewhere he dissed a group of Puerto Rican organizers as incompetent, which LaRouche asserted was tied to their being “almost totally sexually impotent.”

Antisemitism & Fascism

While LaRouche's antisemitism is often veiled, he has written that Judaism is a kind of parasitic appendage to Christianity, that “a selfsustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist,” and that Jewish culture “is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed” to non-Jews.

Antisemitic conspiracy theories were a core element of Hitler's Nazi movement, and later, the Nazis encouraged homophobia-themes picked up by LaRouche and some of his followers. A top spokesperson of the Anti-Defamation League has said of LaRouche: “He is a small-time Hitler, if I can put it that way, in that he regurgitates many little things that Hitler did but he does it in a somewhat ambivalent way, in a somewhat camouflaged way.”

The TDP condemned this kind of person and this kind of politics in their resolution against Kesha Rogers. Who honestly agrees with LaRouche and wants to defend Kesha Rogers?

WHEREAS, congressional candidate Kesha Rogers describes and defines herself as a LaRouche Democrat, and    

WHEREAS, Ms. Rogers’ campaign rhetoric, literature, platform positions and website confirm that she is a dedicated follower of Lyndon LaRouche and is an associate of and messenger for the LaRouche Movement, and    

WHEREAS, prior actions by Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche Movement include instances of illegal activities, discriminatory proclamations and thuggish behavior, and    

WHEREAS, the historical record of documentation, both produced by and relating to Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche Movement contains clear, convincing and overwhelming evidence of discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation and ethnic origin, and     

WHEREAS, the rules of the Texas Democratic Party (Art. I, B, 1.) require that no test of membership, nor oaths of loyalty, to the Texas Democratic Party shall be used if those oaths or tests would have the effect of requiring members of the Democratic Party to acquiesce in, condone or support discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnic origin, now therefore be it    

RESOLVED, that no Rules or Declarations of the Texas Democratic Party that require support for Party nominees shall be enforced or have any application as they relate to the  candidacy of any person identifying him or herself as aligned with the LaRouche Movement or Lyndon LaRouche, and, be it further    

RESOLVED, that Members, Officers and Candidates of the Texas Democratic Party are neither required nor encouraged to support the candidacy of any person indentifying him or herself as aligned with the LaRouche Movement or Lyndon LaRouche but are nevertheless free to relate to, describe and interact with any such candidates or campaigns as they individually deem appropriate, and, be it further    

RESOLVED, that the Texas Democratic Party will have no relationship with the  campaign of any person indentifying him or herself as aligned with the LaRouche Movement or Lyndon LaRouche; no such campaigns will have access to Party materials or data, no listing on the Party website and no position of privilege or recognition at Party meetings or conventions.    


About Author

Phillip Martin

Currently the Research and Policy Director for Progress Texas and the Texas Research Institute, Phillip Martin writes occasional long-form pieces for BOR that promote focused analysis and insight into Texas politics. Born and raised in Austin, Phillip started working in politics in 2003 and started writing on BOR in the summer of 2005. Phillip has worked for the Texas Democratic Trust, the Texas Legislative Study Group, and now the Progress Texas family. He is a lifelong Houston Astros fan, a loyal Longhorn, and loves swimming at Barton Springs Pool.


  1. You are missing the point.
    We've got a whole bunch of unwarranted comparisons here.

    It's not fair to compare LaRouche with Hitler, as was done in the article that you quote.  Qualifying the comparison by calling him a “small-time Hitler” does not make it any less inappropriate.

    It's not fair for LaRouche and Kesha Rogers to compare Obama with Hitler.  And for a Democratic Congressional nominee to have made such a comparison is simply outrageous.

    Comparing this action by the SDEC with McCarthyism is outrageous.  Those who were accused as Communists during the Red Scare suffered greatly because of the accusation.  LaRouche and his followers will not suffer greatly from this resolution.

    Also outrageous is your statement that “The TDP condemned this kind of person and this kind of politics in their resolution against Keesha [sic] Rogers. Who honestly agrees with LaRouche and wants to defend Keesha [sic] Rogers?”  Several SDEC members voted against this resolution (nowhere near a majority, of course), and it's not fair to suggest that any of them are agreeing with LaRouche or defending Rogers.  

    People on both sides of this resolution found it troubling.  At some point, a party that has the word “Democratic” in its name must respect the will of its primary voters, even when the choice made by those voters becomes an embarrassment to the party.

    What bothers me about this resolution is the precedent that it sets.  It becomes more legitimate in the future for the TDP to shun other candidates or factions that are outside the mainstream of the party, even if they are not subversive or destructive as Rogers and LaRouche are.

    I urge a closer reading of what the resolution actually says, as it was written with extreme caution with regard to the TDP Rules and to the law.  The main issue was that under the TDP Rules, all county chairs, precinct chairs, and convention delegates and alternates must agree to support all of the party's nominees (including Rogers) or be removed.  The resolution relieves them of the requirement that they must support a LaRouche follower.  For this reason I was convinced that the resolution is necessary.  Even though I am uncomfortable with the resolution, I did not vote against it.  But those who did vote against it should not be accused of agreeing with LaRouche and defending Rogers.

  2. Consider Kei$ha Rogers a gift.
    First, getting LaRouched is uncomfortable for anyone, but if your party was not taking care of business during the primary to ensure that only dyed-in-the-wool partisans were getting the party's nominations, you needed a wake-up call.  In fact, there are some who speculate that Kei$ha is not your only Trojan Horse in the Houston metroplex:



    Second, if the party was lax in its approach to the primary, and if Kei$ha's candidacy was a necessary wake up call, you should be relieved that this disaster occurred in TXCD-22 because – painful as it must be to admit it – you were going to lose TXCD-22 anyway.

    Third, I am spelling Kei$ha with a dollar sign because you should train yourself to see her name and automatically think of all the money you are saving by not having to fund a candidate in TXCD-22 which is a very solidly GOP district that you were not going to win anyway.

    In the end, Kei$ha is a warning sign, but if you heed the warning and the you fix the problem that gave rise to Kei$ha before the problem spreads to other races (maybe races which you might have possibly won), you should consider Kei$ha's candidacy a small price to pay for the much needed wakeup call.

    PS — you have spelled Kei$ha's name two different ways, and I think neither is correct (but don't take my word for it — I'm deliberately inserting improper characters into her name so what do I know?)


  3. Uh. that is pretty stupid
    The party will not give money to candidates. We have infastructure to pay for. We can not possibly finance candidates much less one that will lose.

    That is just plain stupid. The party would NEVER put money towards rogers. Not only is she a bonafide idiot, she has absolutely no chance of winning.


  4. The Effect of a Shunning Resolution
    The actual effect of this “shunning” resolution, whatever its intent, is (i) to highlight the LaRouche agenda, (ii) to undermine the integrity of our own party, and, thereby, (iii) to undermine the straight-ticket campaign that we will attempt to run in November.

    The LaRouche organization has already successfully “gamed” the system. This resolution may not even be effective damage-control.

    Democrats task should be (i) to register, (ii) to motivate and (iii) to mobilize surge voters from 2008 behind our straight-ticket. These are the marching orders from Tim Kaine via Rick Cofer we got last month. Too bad we have wasted a year congratulating Boyd Richie and Matt Angle for the victories Barack Obama, not John Edwards or Hilary Clinton, won here in 2008.

    Building a strong party, rather than lurching from one opportunistic campaign to another, is necessary to turn the majority of Texans who now self-identify with the Democratic Party on the basis of one issue or candidate into a  straight-ticket vote in Harris, Galveston, and Fort Bend Counties.

    That is the only way to build a reliable statewide electoral majority that can actually govern here since there is no coalition of liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans in prospect.

    This is more than feasible, it is probably imperative.

    Instead, we are, once again, relying on one self-funded campaign pitched to “likely voters”, including moderate Republicans, to split the GOP ticket and support Bill White. We can surely hope that he has the coat-tails to pick up a few House seats. But, that is just a hope, not a plan, not a strategy — more like a bad habit that has failed again and again.

    It may be the case that Bill White needs a strong party more than a weak party needs Bill White. We will see whether the Temporary Committee on Platform hands our statewide candidates a compelling and popular platform or just the usual laundry-list.

    The resolution adopted Saturday just perpetuates the long-standing policy of our cringing-liberal, hand-wringing party establishment:

    “Just ignore the LaRouche organization and they will go away!” No, that, too, has failed again, and again, and again. It is not even a hope, more just an excuse.

    The only effect of the resolution is to allow Bill White to ignore Rogers and distance himself from the rest of the ticket.

    That leaves Rogers free to pitch to the surge voters in CD 22 and invites seasoned voters there to go down ballot and try to “de-select” what will otherwise now be a straight-ticket Democratic vote for Rogers.

    How much money did we spend on Nick Lampson? What did the TDP build in CD 22 and leave behind?

    In fact, the LaRouche operation — like GOP “dirty tricks” in our primary — creates generational and racial division in what (a) the LaRouche organization seeks to prevent and (b) the party establishment does not know how to build:

    A younger, more diverse, and united Democratic majority in Texas.

    That takes more than a party with some inherited acreage on the ballot that it rents out to a few large donors in and out of Texas.

    It takes a party with infrastructure for grass-roots political formation, mobilization, discipline, and action, a party that regulates and governs its own affairs, and a party that conducts its primary elections beyond just filling out and filing forms — something the LaRouche organization can knock us silly with.

    Our clerical elite neglects statutory provision for exclusive affiliation with the Democratic Party and does nothing to “protect the purity of the ballot”.

    We have put legal vanity before what should be our main objective and historical opportunity.

  5. Some remember ….

    when Harris County Chair Larry Veselka was out-numbered by a LaRouchie.  

    There was an immediate need to organize the County party 'around' the LaRouchie

  6. Pingback: Reminder: Democratic Senate Candidate Kesha Rogers Has Called for Obama's Impeachment, Execution - Burnt Orange Report

Leave a Reply

2015 © Skytop Publishing All Rights Reserved. Do not republish without express written permission.

Site designed and developed by well + done DESIGN

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 0 Flares ×