Click on the link called "Contribution" below:
Posted on 04/13/2003 9:36:02 AM PDT by nwrep
Al Sharpton drew the greatest applause of the nine declared Democratic Presidential candidates at a fundraising dinner organized by the Childrens Defense Fund in Washington, D.C. last week.
Following is a transcript from a well known left leaning web-site describing the general adulation that Sharpton received from the crowd gathered there. It will also give us an insight into the current thinking (or lack thereof) among the idiots on the left:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall the event was encouraging. Many good policies were proposed, many witty remarks made. It went beyond opposing the worst of the current administration to proposing aggressive new ideas. The candidates did not attack each other, and they did attack George W. Bush. The middle-of-the-roaders like Kerry and Gephardt said some better things than they might have had Sharpton, Kucinich, Dean, and Mosley-Braun not been there. Lieberman seemed to have found himself in the wrong party – and that's the good news: the crowd and most of the candidates sounded like a real live opposition party, not Republican Lite. Graham and Edwards are the candidates I haven't mentioned yet, neither of whom impressed me much.
Let's look at them in order, from best to worst, in terms of their apparent ability to serve well as president, setting aside for the moment questions of whether they have enough money or whether enough Americans will vote for someone of their race or gender.
1. Al Sharpton was clearly the most impressive and well liked of the bunch. He was the sharpest, most intelligent, funniest and most personable, and best on the issues. He received by far the most applause. In his opening remarks he nailed George W. for proposing the No Child Left Behind Act and then proposing to underfund it, and for promising health care to Iraqis but not Americans.
Many, if not all, of the candidates complained about plans to spend money on Iraq rather than on America. None seemed sufficiently skeptical of the seriousness of Bush's plans to rebuild or democratize Iraq. None seemed able to promote a Marshall plan for Iraq while condemning the bombing of it and promoting social spending in America instead of tax cuts. When each candidate was asked about the war, Sharpton – who was one of five who opposed it – asked where the nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction were. Rather than toppling statues of Saddam Hussein, Sharpton proposed toppling Americans' lack of health insurance, illiteracy, and childhood obesity. And again, to wild cheers, he asked why we had a budget to occupy Iraq but not for the 50 states already occupied.
Michelle Martin of ABC asked Sharpton about a correlation between poverty and out-of-wedlock births. Oddly, she seemed to believe that the latter caused the former. Sharpton gave a great answer, denouncing the Secretary of Education as a disgrace for praising Christian schools and ridiculing public schools. Religion is for Sunday, not for legislation, this preacher said.
Mark Shields from the News Hour with Jim Lehrer asked Sharpton why, in his book, he had called Fidel Castro awesome. Sharpton's answer was brilliant, explaining that in a section on leadership qualities he had also admired Ronald Reagan's leadership skills, while he disagreed with him on nearly everything, and Winston Churchill's, whom he regarded as an imperialist.
Shields asked if Sharpton agreed with Bush on anything, and Sharpton said he agreed with his practice of hiring people of color, but that Bush was choosing the wrong individuals.
All of the candidates were asked what they would do if the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action. Sharpton was the first to say he would fight to create a new case and get the issue back before the Supreme Court for a "rematch." "If we'd given up after Plessy v. Ferguson, we would never have gotten to "Brown v. Board of Education."
In closing, Sharpton said he was fighting for Martin Luther King's dream and (sounding a lot like Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.) for a new Constitution including the right to health care and the right to a good education.
Much of the two-hour event involved discussion of the Children's Defense Fund's Leave-No-Child-Behind motto and bill, as well as Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, Sharpton closed by telling CDF's Marian Wright Edelman, "Marian, I'm the youngest up here. I'm the child of this panel, and when the vote is in I will not be left behind!"
Will white people vote for Sharpton? Will the middle-of-the-roaders that our two parties love to fight over vote for him? Will the much larger group of non-voters become voters for him? Does it matter that he once pushed a rape charge on behalf of a woman who turned out to be lying? Does it matter that the media has tended to portray him poorly? Does he have enough money?
I don't know. But in recent weeks the media seems to have treated him well, and he seems to have the skill to make the media like and respect him. I am willing to forgive his previous support for a false charge, and I say that as someone who has been falsely accused of rape and done jail time as a result. This is about the future of our country, not past resentments. As for racism, we claim to have overcome it; let's prove it. As for money, if you want a strong candidate who can tear Bush apart in a debate, Al's the man to fund.
Click on the link called "Contribution" below:
Wow -- real "Celebrity Deathmatch" stuff!
:)
So much for the "Reverend" part of Reverend Al!
After your FR contribution, send $5 to Al. Can someone list the states where they have an open primary. We need to two things: 1) encourage GOP voters in those states to vote in the RAT primary, and 2) get rolling with opposition research for Sharpton. With the talent here, we should be able to help him do some good damage.
I don't know. But in recent weeks the media seems to have treated him well, and he seems to have the skill to make the media like and respect him. I am willing to forgive his previous support for a false charge, and I say that as someone who has been falsely accused of rape and done jail time as a result. This is about the future of our country, not past resentments. As for racism, we claim to have overcome it; let's prove it. As for money, if you want a strong candidate who can tear Bush apart in a debate, Al's the man to fund.
I like this. I really do.
This tells me something that I was hoping for. The DNC/DLC offensive against Sharpton (using toadies like Begala and Brazille) has backfired in the Democratic Party's activist community, both among white and nonwhite Sturmabteilungen. You will recall that Crossfire episode in which Begala kept yapping about Tawana Brawley? You will also recall Donna Brazille's effort to recruit "native son" black candidates in important states to kill off Sharpton's margins early in the primaries? Both efforts came a cropper, and now Sharpton is doing some open field running with the black base vote.
This is great, for two reasons:
1. Sharpton might take South Carolina and several other southern primary states using the black bloc and the Guilty White Liberal voter to springboard him to victory. This will give him enormous clout in Boston. The DNC crowd will have to come to him. That is to say, Bill and Hillary Clinton will have to have a sit-down with the Right Reverend to find out what he wants. Unless, of course, the Clintons want a walkout which would upend the candidacy of the Empty Suit who happens to have their support for the nomination.
2. As Sharpton's power increases in the Democratic Party, Jesse Jackson's power must necessarily decrease. Jesse has allies in the NAACP power structure, among black leaders in the trades unions, and among black financiers and industrialists in many industries. Some have benefited from Jackson's shakedowns. As Sharpton waxes, these leaders will necessarily rethink their financial positions within the Party. This will lead to a civil war between Jackson and Sharpton, as JJ attempts to defend his position against Sharpton's insurgency. In this effort, he will have the quiet backing of the Clintons, who understand the danger that Al poses to them and their ambitions.
Naturally, these conflicts will be too pronounced to be swept under the rug, as the black community will smell real power for the first time. Also, naturally, the rather wealthy and rather white folks who control the money in the Democratic Party will attempt beat down this insurgency. Black voters will not be fooled, but they will insist to themselves that they not be "fooled" into voting Republican, either.
According to my scenario, it is about this time that George W. Bush steps in, Dick Cheney steps down to retirement, and Condi Rice steps up to the Vice-Presidency. Bush has always had a talent for creating disorder among the "other side" (you will recall the deal he made with Charlie Norwood about health care liability prior to the Stem-Cell debate and 9-11?), and there will be absolute chaos among Democratic leaders once this occurs.
Right now, as the Sharpton thing plays out, keep your eye on Rice.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
If 90% of blacks voted Republican instead of Democrat, Keyes would have been a much bigger factor in the primary.
The Dems have that problem with Big Al. And if has a good showing in the primary, he may feel compelled to run on a third party ticket. Then he become the Black Perot for the Democrats in '04. I'll be doing everything in my power to make that happen (ala the Dems and McCain in 2000).
What comes around, goes around. It's a beautiful thing.
We should SERIOUSLY do that. It would a way to get out the message among grassroots Republicans nationwide to "crossover" in the primary and vote for Big Al in their respected states.
A website and campaign materials are in order! How do you file a candidate PAC with the Federal Election Commission?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.