Both The Black Commentor and The Village Voice are slamming Al Sharpton this week, apparently with good reason. They argue, persuasively, that Sharpton has allowed himself to become a puppet of Republican operative Roger Stone. (Stone is best-known for organizing the conservative mobs that stopped vote-counting in Florida in 2000.)
From the Black Commentator article:
Roger Stone, a millionaire political consultant who began his career as a 19-year-old Watergate dirty trickster, virtually took over the Sharpton campaign in the last quarter of 2003, according to reports in the New York Times (January 25), Salon.com (”A GOP Trickster Rents Sharpton,” February 3) and New York’s Village Voice (“Sleeping with the GOP,” February 3). Stone and Sharpton were introduced two years ago by Donald Trump, the celebrity millionaire, said the Times. Stone brought in Charles Halloran to replace Sharpton campaign manager Frank Watkins, a longtime advisor to the Jesse Jacksons, Junior and Senior, who resigned in late September. (In the Village Voice article, Sharpton says Watkins was fired.) Halloran previously managed the New York gubernatorial campaign of far-right billionaire Tom Golisano, on the Independence Party line. He also managed a mostly white, conservative party’s attempt to unseat the first Black-led government of Bermuda.
Stone provides “ideas and direction, while Mr. Halloran…does the front-line work,” said the Times. “In the attacks on Dr. Dean, Mr. Stone helped set the tone and direction while Mr. Halloran did the research. Mr. Halloran came up with Dr. Dean’s hiring record as governor, for example, aides to Mr. Sharpton said.” […]
Stone has “loaned” Sharpton at least $270,000, and the candidate has made frequent use of Stone’s credit card, according to the Voice story. NAN funds have been hopelessly commingled with campaign monies – a potential legal disaster.
The relationship boggles the mind. Roger Stone is the Hard Right storm trooper whose goons bum-rushed the Miami-Dade elections offices in 2000, shutting down the recount and setting the stage for George Bush’s “selection.”
The Black Commentator agues that Sharpton’s run, on balance, may still be a good thing; Sharpton has harmed himself as a public figure, but his presence in the debates has also forced the leading (and, needless to say, white) candidates to improve their positions:
Sharpton’s candidacy has had a magical effect on the racial chemistry of the Democratic dialogue, in starkest contrast to the White Citizens Council-type language of the GOP. He caused the white candidates to repeatedly demonstrate, through their words and campaign schedules, that they valued Black voters.
I also like the BC’s conclusion:
Whites of all political persuasions denounced Sharpton as an opportunist and publicity seeker – as if they were telling Black folks something we didn’t know. But we desperately needed publicity, and an opportunity to be heard. Rev. Al seized the spotlight and shook things up, which was a lot better than nothing.
Somebody Black had to do it.
As us bloggers are wont to say, read the whole thing.
I find this… disappointing. I’ve generally supported Kucinich in the democratic primary, but I’ve admired Sharpton’s performance in the debates and his articulation of progressive positions. Sharpton has some disturbing episodes in his past, but I thought he had earned a second chance – a chance to show he had changed and emerge as a serious progressive voice.
Little chance of that now..
Sharpton was the “only one to step forward”? Why do you like that conclusion? Doesn’t it ignore Carol Mosley Braun’s effort?
Thank you, Decon! I was just going to say the same thing.
As the article pointed out, Carol Moseley Braun didn’t put herself forward as a candidate until after Sharpton had declared. According to what I’ve read (in the Black Commentator, among other places), Braun’s entry into the race has been widely perceived, among progressive black activists, as being a response to Sharpton; they don’t believe that she would have run if Sharpton hadn’t run as well.
Amp, there’s a pattern here with bc’s treatment of Braun and Sharpton. I can see the appeal of conspiracy theories to the left, but before signing on to one, ask do the facts add up? Is there any pressing reason to accept a conspiracy theory when other explanations are equally if not more tenable?
As for Braun, I have researched this and found that Braun was indeed making noise about running about 16 months ago. In order for bc’s conjecture to hold up (a conjecture which was planted by Sharpton for obvious reasons and then later retracted), she would have had to been recruited by DB in a matter of hours, and she would have been chosen as a shill because she was already talking about running. Does this add up?
If you want independent refutation of this rumour, look up Ron Walters, who eventually came out for Sharpton. He has claimed to know for a fact that this rumour is false.
Here’s one article where he states that.
So I take the bc with a grain of salt, even when they’re not sticking knives into Braun–a decent liberal many progressives, including African Americans, were happy to support.
The bc’s latest take on Sharpton isn’t much different. They wonder in disbelief at the fact that a man with his reputation couldn’t raise money. Gee. With supporters like bc, it really *is* a wonder nobody wants to step up and represent “progressive” Blacks.
The simple fact is that access to campaign money and media is not easy for an African American (or a woman) to come by, and what media coverage can be had for free is more often than not biased. I could demonstrate this in any number of ways, but I shouldn’t have to be explaining it to any self-proclaimed progressive.
So when bc is all like any publicity is good publicity for the problems of black Americans, they themselves provide the premise and justification for candidate Sharpton’s strange bedfellows. And really, have the NNPA or BET done much better by him? So if bc’s not going to reassess its premises or own up to its own conduct, they ought to cut the Rev. a little slack, knowing how difficult it is for him to get his message out. But no, that would be too adult for them, and not as sexy for readers as putting forward conspiracy theories and character assisinations.
Big fat grain of salt.
Really, my big question is, if this is what the Republicans are up to NOW, how do we protect the integrity of the voting process come November?
That’s a great question, kajah, one that everyone (even Republicans) needs to be asking very seriously, right now! One priority issue involves the incoming electronic voting machines. I would like to suggest a useful webpage to find out some crucial details involving these voting machines, Diebold Inc. and the controversial machines produced by this company.
At the Core of Democracy: Electronic Voting Machines
http://www.kucinich.us/e-voting/intro.php