Comments on: Simply the worst

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:16:48 +0000

“Did the Democratic party EVENTUALLY ally itself with the civil rights movement? Yeah. After all the heavy lifting was done. After having MADE that lifting as heavy as it could. And, frankly, only after the original goal of the civil rights movement, LEGAL equality, had already been achieved.” Hmmm. Lots of the big civil rights laws were passed in the 60s. Which party had the Presidency then? Brett, I believe you’re saying that the state of civil rights was just fine in ‘59. Bye. —Oh, and gun control equals Jim Crow. Noted.

By: Jeffrey Kramer

Jeffrey Kramer — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:40:50 +0000

“…[Robertson hasn’t] personally drummed up lynch mobs, which went on to kill somebody.” Nor has Sharpton. What he did, according to all the accounts I’ve seen so far, was make inflammatory statements in front of a group of protestors. But that group was not a lynch mob, and that group did not go on to kill people: the murders were committed by one individual. Even if that accusation were closer to being literally true, moreover, it wouldn’t annul the comparison. If I were determined to resent, on Sharpton’s behalf, any comparison with Robertson, I could come up with an impressive list of Robertson sins to which Sharpton could plead “not guilty.” For example, Sharpton has never claimed to be a prophet of God and insinuated that the same fate awaited those who criticized him as awaited those unfortunate boys who taunted the prophet Elisha. The general fact remains: Robertson, like Sharpton, has enough to answer for that it takes a strong stomach and a large degree of cynicism to accept the spectacle of would-be Presidents of the United States agreeing to treat him as a reasonable and honorable man.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 01:30:20 +0000

Give me a break! I’m not asking you to keep him off the ballot. But you’re not constitutionally required to invite him to your shindigs, or treat him like the decent human being he isn’t if he shows up. Let’s be clear about this: Did the Democratic party EVENTUALLY ally itself with the civil rights movement? Yeah. After all the heavy lifting was done. After having MADE that lifting as heavy as it could. And, frankly, only after the original goal of the civil rights movement, LEGAL equality, had already been achieved. That’s when the Democratic party and the “civil rights” movement hooked up. When the latter morphed into the sort of interest group looking for racial spoils you were already used to fronting for. New customer, old gig. Heck, look at your love of gun control laws: YOU’RE STILL FIGHTING TO ENACT JIM CROW LAWS!

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:39:49 +0000

So the standard is that the Democrats, who can’t prevent Sharpton from running for the nomination, are to be condemned because they don’t organize a boycott of him in the debates. They did encourage Carol Moseley-Braun to run, in order to marginalize Sharpton; they have never nominated Sharpton for dogcatcher; and if they’ve given a pass to any offensive statements in the debates, no one’s cited it—but nothing but an outright boycott will do. The Republicans, who have engaged in a 40-year pattern of currying favor with segregationists (who incited plenty of racial violence, folks)—welcoming them into the party when the Democrats abandoned them, promoting them to Senate Majority Leader and Chief Justice of the United States*—are to be praised. And the fact that an overwhelming percentage of black voters vote against this party is somehow “Stalinist.” Makes sense to me. *See http://www.geocities.com/justice_watch/rehnquist_information.html for the skinny on Rehnquist—who in my opinion should make the short list of most despicable people in politics. Unlike Sharpton, who never has held office, Rehnquist has disgraced possibly the most sacred office in the land.

By: Xhenxhefil

Xhenxhefil — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:24:59 +0000

The Central Park ‘wilding?’… again… if they didn’t want to get convicted they shouldn’t have sung rap songs bragging about the act the night of the crime on video. What act? They volunteered details they couldn’t have known if they didn’t participate in the ‘GANG RAPE’. This is the most bizarre justification I’ve ever heard. It is unquestionable that they DIDN’T participate in the ‘GANG RAPE’, because it was committed by someone else. So, how did they know those details? A) Coincidence B) The parallel universe in which they committed the crime suddenly melded back with the regular universe between the crime and the confession C) Coercion by a police force receiving incredible amounts of pressure to convict somebody Which is more likely? Should the police have let them go? Assuming that they didn’t just confess to make the police department look bad 10 years down the road, yes. ‘Wilding’ is the mispronounciation of ‘Wild Thing’ the rap song they sang. Oh, that act. Here’s the lyrics to “Wild Thing”. It’s a pretty innocent and light-hearted song compared to present-day rap music. They got to walk because the retrial, at the end of their sentences, didn’t justify forcing them to complete the terms for the CRIMES THEY CONFESSED TO! So, even though the real rapist is now known, they should complete their sentences to, um, teach them a lesson not to confess to things they didn’t do? Or does confessing to something retroactively cause you to have done that thing? Very interesting ontological argument. “The Crucible” contains similar points of view.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:26:16 +0000

That close parallel is pretty distant, unless you can point out a couple of occasions on which Robertson, (Who is indeed a piece of work, I’ll agree.) has personally drummed up lynch mobs, which went on to kill somebody.

By: Jeffrey Kramer

Jeffrey Kramer — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:15:09 +0000

I would say the closest Republican parallel to Sharpton is probably Pat Robertson: at least equally corrupt and self-seeking, at least equally given to hysterical and inflammatory nonsense, won more votes in the presidential primaries than Sharpton will come close to getting, loads of nationally prominent Republicans willing if not happy to have their picture taken with him and listen (or pretend to listen) respectfully to his pronouncements.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:58:37 +0000

I’m not smearing the Democratic party instead of Sharpton, I’m pointing out that the Democratic party is smearing ITSELF by associating with Sharpton. The simple fact is that the Democratic contenders WILL enter a debate with Sharpton in it, and Republican candidates for the nomination would NOT attend a debate with Duke in it. Sharpton is a Democratic phenomenon, with no Republican parallel, and you really ought to give more serious thought to the implications of that. Think about why that’s the case, and what it implies about your party. To call the guy dirt would insult soil, and yet your hopefuls for the White house are willing to share a podium with him, and treat him with respect! I’ll leave it at that, because my theories about why you tolerate that racial demogogue just get you too worked up to focus on the central point: You DO tolerate him! And isn’t it about time you stopped?

By: zizka

zizka — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:00:14 +0000

Somehow I expected this joint to attract a classier crowd. Thurmond didn’t reform and then go join the Republican Party. He left the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party, previously segregatiuonist like Strom, reformed out from under him, and the Republicans accepted him unreformed. Same for Lott, Gramm, and dozens of others. The statement to which I am responding discredited the speaker. Byrd cleaned up his act and stayed a Democrat. Likewise Gore Sr (not mentioned so far, but he always comes up). If they hadn’t, they would have gone Republican too. The Democratic percentage of the black vote is about 91%. Doesn’t approach the Stalinist 99% mark. Another weak / dishonest argument. This percentage would be markedly higher if conservative Christians, small businessmen, etc., in the black community were not perfectly aware that the Republican Party now caters to the old white racists. The way the Democratic Party did, in the old days when a lot of black Americans indeed WERE Republicans. Let’s live in the present, OK?

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:06:52 +0000

I don’t see how it’s a tautology to say that 90% of Christian conservatives vote Republican. Unless it followed logically that one wasn’t conservative if one didn’t vote Republican. But of course that doesn’t follow at all. Some Pat Buchanan voters are conservatives, some Conservative Party voters are conservatvies, etc. (Back home people even say that deficit hawks are conservatives, and these days deficit hawks may even vote Democratic.) Simple mathematics tells us there are as many groups that vote 90% Republican as there are ways of choosing n% of the Republican voters and n/9% or fewer of the Democratic voters. (Assuming here the Republican and Democratic voter sets are the same size to start with, which for current purposes is close enough to true.) That is an unimaginably huge number. To be sure, some of those groups will be artificial gerrymanders, but some of them will be the kind of groups of which the Republican party panders to. Of course one can do the same trick with the Democratic demographics. But for some reason it’s the black vote that’s the first such group to come up. Wonder why.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:32:58 +0000

Alex: People are by and large responding to Brett’s attempt to smear the Democratic party, not defending Sharpton. Most Democrats I know despise Sharpton. Drapetomaniac: Sharpton is not just a person with moral failings like you and me. He’s a genuinely bad person.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:23:47 +0000

Ah, Matt, as I recall, Strom did his dispicable stuff as a Democrat, and became a Republican as he reformed. ;) Oh, yeah, and he DID recant. In the only way that really matters: His deeds. Now, Sharpton, he’s never recanted anything, with words OR deeds. Oh, and Brian? The Republican party DOESN’T get a percentage of any group’s vote remotely comparable to the 90% plus of the black vote the Democrats have come to rely on. Certainly not of Christians, though it was a nice try to make your claim a tautology, by inserting that “conservative” bit. The nearest Republican parallel to Sharpton would have to be David Duke. Only, you’ll notice that the Republican party DID repudiate Duke, didn’t they? Pretty darn quickly, too. I suspect we’ll have to wait another few decades before the Democrats get sick of associating with Sharpton, though.

By: DANEgerus

DANEgerus — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:17:00 +0000

Sen. Byrd(D) led the ‘64 filibuster againt the Civil Rights Act so bore me to tears with the anti® screed… a higher % of®’s voted FOR it then did the (D)’s… The Central Park ‘wilding?’… again… if they didn’t want to get convicted they shouldn’t have sung rap songs bragging about the act the night of the crime on video. They volunteered details they couldn’t have known if they didn’t participate in the ‘GANG RAPE’. Should the police have let them go? ‘Wilding’ is the mispronounciation of ‘Wild Thing’ the rap song they sang. They got to walk because the retrial, at the end of their sentences, didn’t justify forcing them to complete the terms for the CRIMES THEY CONFESSED TO! So bad things happen and Sharpton gets a pass for rabid anti-semitism. Oh I’m sorry… let’s give the Klan a pass because they got whiney about some slight… let’s embrace the Nazi’s because one Jew might be a banker… cause that excuses it all. Sharpton is a criminal who get’s a pass spewing hate speech that is documented as getting people killed. He missed all the deadlines on filing for finances in this very campaign, doesn’t ever pay taxes on his psuedo income, has blood on his hands and you want to mention him in the same breath as Trent Lott? Despise Trent Lott as I do for who he is and what he does but spare me the ‘I hate®’s self delusion’…

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:15:09 +0000

I confess I don’t understand the mentality of “well, the Republicans pander to racists, too!” That doesn’t make what Sharpton does right or excusable.

By: drapetomaniac

drapetomaniac — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:46:32 +0000

Yes but it doesn’t follow from any of that that there is any reason to respect Al Sharpton. huh? nathan newman gave one excellent reason to respect al sharpton. did you actually read it? i’ll give you another: bensonhurst. i don’t have a zillionth the stamina sharpton has. do you know how many families of victims of brutality are grateful to al sharpton? if you’re saying that there is no reason to respect al sharpton as long as there is someone else who is a better person, i’d say there is no reason to respect you either, then.