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.
In the states with a large black population, Sharpton has a built in base. For instance, in a state that is 20% black, black voters could account for almost 40% of the dem primary voters. Sharpton can turn them out. 40% could be more than enough to win a primary with 9 candidates. The dems have to play nice with Al if they want to get him to throw his votes to any particular candidate. He will at least have a prime time speaking slot at their convention. I think Sharpton has a chance to win 4 or 5 states outright, plus 15% in some others.
This is going to be fun.
Here's what the (tentative) Dem primary schudule looks like, I recommend we get organizated for massive crossover voting in the states I bolded. I think Sharpton has the potential to get some major voters there.
Even if they don't have an open primary, does it really matter if there's no competition on the GOP side? My state has an semi-open primary (declare party when you show up to vote), but I'm not missing out on anything since Bush and Fitzgerald will likely face only token "opposition" in the GOP primary. I'll just switch back as soon as the next election roles around. heh heh.
JANUARY 13, 2004:
D.C. - Presidential Primary
JANUARY 19, 2004:
Iowa - Presidential Caucuses (Tent.)
JANUARY 27, 2004
Michigan - Presidential Caucuses (Tent.)
New Hampshire - Presidential Primary (Tent.)
FEBRUARY 3, 2004
Arizona - Presidential Primary
Missouri - Presidential Primary
South Carolina - Presidential Primary (Tent.)
Virginia - Presidential Primary? (Tent.)
FEBRUARY 24, 2004
Virginia - Presidential Primary? (Tent.)
MARCH 2, 2004 “Super Tuesday”?
California - Presidential Primary
Connecitcut - Presidential Primary
Georgia - Presidential Primary
Hawaii - Presidential Caucuses
Massachusetts - Presidential Primary
New York - Presidential Primary
Ohio - Presidential Primary
Texas - Presidential & State Primaries
Vermont - Presidential Primary
MARCH 9, 2004
Florida - Presidential Primary
Louisiana - Presidential Primary
Tennessee - Presidential Primary
MARCH 16, 2004
Illinois - Presidential & State Primaries (Tent.)
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.