Sharpton clever, but is funded by Roger Stone, Miami-ballot riot architect

[Lori Price CLG]

I am curious as to why this story has not made more of an impact. I think it is huge, as it's interesting to note how Al Sharpton tried to discredit Dr. Dean in earlier debates.

Here is a snippet of this Village Voice article:

A Bush Covert Operative Takes Over Al Sharpton's Campaign Sleeping With the GOP

by Wayne Barrett with special reporting by Adam Hutton and Christine Lagorio --February 5th, 2004

Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton.

<snip>

Recruited in 2000 by his friend James Baker, the former secretary of state, to spearhead the GOP street forces in Miami, Stone is apparently confident that he can use the Democrat-bashing preacher to damage the party's eventual nominee, just as Sharpton himself bragged he did in the New York mayoral campaign of 2001. In his 2002 book, Al on America, Sharpton wrote that he felt the city's Democratic Party "had to be taught a lesson" in 2001—insisting that Mark Green, who defeated the Sharpton-backed Fernando Ferrer in a bitter runoff, had disrespected him and minorities. Adding that the party "still has to be taught one nationally," he warned: "A lot of 2004 will be about what happened in New York in 2001. It's about dignity." In 2001, Sharpton engaged in a behind-the-scenes dialogue with campaign aides to Republican Mike Bloomberg while publicly disparaging Green.

-Lori Price

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Probably because it would call undue attention to Dean's repub fundraiser

What is interesting is how many people who consider Sharpton unelectable choose to spend their valuable time and energy bashing him, typically after a debate.

He does tend to make the other candidates look pretty pathetic. It is understandable that their supporters would feel somewhat resentful and put out by this.

[Lori Price CLG]

3. No, I liked Sharpton UNTIL I learned the GOP funded him.

It has become obvious to me that Sharpton is 'sent in' so that we possibly end up with a 'less liberal' candidate, as in New York Mayor Mark Bloomberg instead of the liberal, Mark Green. Bloomberg stands side by side with Bush on most issues.

I mean, this is DIRECT funding of the Sharpton campaign from Republican Roger Stone who worked to stop the ballot recount in Miami.

Democrats should be OUTRAGED.

-Lori Price

[StClone]

4. I liked Sharpton too...now on to Nader

It is obvious that Al has questionable backing in the race. Nader may prove otherwise but he too should be watched.

[Nadienne]

16. Ditto that

When I first heard about it, I was baffled as to what harm Sharpton can cause to the Dem nominee...

Now I think I know: He wants to paint Democrats in general as insincere, phony, manipulatives, saying to minorities, "Please support us, even though we won't support you."

And then Repubs can come back and say, "Well, at least Bush is a religious man. He trusts in a Higher Power, the same Higher Power that has carried you through this far..." (or something to that effect)

It is absolutely imperative that Democrats take a strong stand on all civil issues.

[Tinoire]

2. It bothered me. I don't like it one bit but I do not blame Sharpton

unless he is willingly helping them split the progressive vote & that is something I prefer to doubt but I've gotten so cynical about how easily souls are sold and bought in politics that nothing would surprise me. We're just not angels. Anyway, Black people have a right to have a voice in this debate and so do Progressives.
It's too bad the Dems couldn't finance Sharpton or someone like Barbara Lee.

THAT speaks volumes to me.

We're all played like bad violins in these elections.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. If Sharpton is backed by the GOP, I'd say it's him playing them

I'm assuming by the "progressive vote," you mean voters who oppose not only bush himself but his policies.

If splitting the vote of that already miniscule sector was a motivation for Republicans to back Sharpton, they got screwed 2 ways.

It is a stupid premise for the expenditure of funds to begin with, and I don't think he takes enough votes from Kucinich to affect anything anyway.

Add the Diebold factor, and they would have been better off spending the money on a nice vacation at the beach.

[Tinoire]

6. In a nutshell, here's my cynical take

The boys aren't stupid. They saw the antiwar protests. They read boards like this one where people said they would NOT vote for war-enabling pukes (and I'm talking about the corporate-loving, war-encouraging, establishment-owned DLC which is owned by the same people who own the Republicans).

Put yourself in their shoes.

You work carefully for years grooming someone like Kerry to be President. He's your man all the way. He's covered scandals for you, thrown a few liberal crumbs to the people so they won't catch on, but when push came to shove, when the votes matter, he's your man.

And then the war. And Bush, the village-idiot in his haste and greed, bungles it and infuriates the American people. All of a sudden people are OUT in the streets wanting not only Bush's head but the head of all the war enabling Dems.

What do you do? Sit back quietly and let the Primaries unfold according to the writing on the floor? Do you let your pro-war, Bush-enabling, NAFTA-loving DLC boy go down in flames because the voters have made it clear they're not going to support him.

Or... do you send a myriad of antiwar candidates forth to split up that antiwar vote so that no one antiwar candidate can carry the Primaries as the media behind the corporate war-enablers keeps pushing their little mantra "Only the DLC guys are electable, only the DLC guys are electable". Trojan horses, back-room deals, goons in suits at the caucuses pushing people around, a certain candidate appearing at caucuses that he turned into candidate rallies, caucus locations mysteriously switched at the last minute and only one camp knowing where the new ones were. So transparent. So disgusting.

Some of us saw this from a mile away.

Commedia dell'Arte at its absolute finest. Too bad the lives of real people are at stake.

Anyway, my problem is not Sharpton. Never was and never will be.

My problem is the people behind the curtain, the ones with the purse-strings. They're the same ones backing Kerry.

As far as Sharpton goes... everytime he opens his mouth, I just want to yell "Preach it Brother!".

[Lori Price CLG]

8. Sharpton is not in there to split the progressive vote, but rather...

to disparage the most 'left' of the (in their eyes) 'electable' Democrats. That is precisely why Sharpton went after Dean, until the Reichwing made sure Dean was not 'electable.'

I also note that Sharpton stated in a previous debate that if bin Laden were 'captured,' America would be safer... hmmmm... that would surely boost the impact of Bush's October surprise --the bin Laden 'capture.'

-Lori Price

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. LOL I guess cynicism is relative. You have a much rosier view

of the strength of the alleged anti-war movement than I do.

If I were a regime loyalist planning how to spend money, I would not open my checkbook unless I saw 6 preferably 7 figures swarming the mall, crushed against the white house gates, EVERY DAY. For months.

Even after the invasion. In every major city and some minor ones, sporting events cancelled because gyms and stadiums are all full of arrestees and mayors are screaming in my ear, and at least 10% of my crusaders are saying "HELL NO."

Because anything less is isolated fringe stuff that I don't need to worry about.

[Tinoire]

13. Lol... Probably cause I live in California

where the well-to-do engineer geeks joined up with us so that the day the war broke out the protests were so chaotic that the establishment couldn't keep up with them.

We knew exactly where to go and when.

The engineers had timed everything for us, down to when the traffic lights would turn what color and where so that small pockets could descend on places like Betchel without being impeded by the police.

But you are right about many of your points. The view in Silicon Valley is obviously different. We have realized we are a different country already ;)

[Laughing Mirror]

7. A system that assures the candidate with the most money wins

Is a system that is totally corrupt.

This is where the real problem lies, as I see it. Sharpton using Stone doesn't bother me a bit. Use the enemy's weapons against them is what he is doing. I will always support him.

[Lori Price CLG]

9. But, it's not just corp. $, which is bad enough, but $ from the GOP itself

I see a HUGE difference between a candidate, at the 'mercy' of the 'system,' accepting a corporation's/lobbyist's money. The candidate may or actually may NOT help the donor(s), at vote time. But, to accept money from the GOP coupmeisters is more SERIOUS matter. Furthermore, Sharpton is NOT using the 'enemy's weapons against them.' I see NO evidence of that premise; quite the opposite is taking place.

That having been said, I do agree the system has *got* to change. We concur on that point.


-Lori Price

[Laughing Mirror]

11. and where does the GOP money come from?

The same corporations that finance the democratic candidates, as well. What is the difference, pray tell?

[Lori Price CLG]

15. Because, most of these corporations...

the ones we 'don't like,' and you know what I mean -- give 75% of their money to the GOP and 25% to the Democrats. The Democrats are, therefore, on record for having *received* the money, but typically vote against their agenda. Sen. Kerry made that point last night in the debate. This does not mean I endorse Kerry over the other candidates, I am just defending him in this instance.

Believe me, the system needs to be changed. But taking money from Verizon, for example, is not as *bad* as taking money from a GOP OPERATIVE who DIRECTLY funded the Miami stop-the-vote riot. This is because Sharpton PROFESSES to despise Bush. Ergo, why take money from Bush's operatives?

-Lori Price

[Laughing Mirror]

17. Why take money from anybody at all?

I do remember Roger Stone's Miami stop-the-vote riot. At the risk of sounding cynical, it seemed to have worked.

I also remember another near-riot, the congressional black caucus in the Capitol protesting handing over the presidency to the wrong president. And no Democratic Senator who would sponsor them.

[Lori Price CLG]

18. YES about the Cong. Black Caucus needing support after the coup...

"I also remember another near-riot, the congressional black caucus in the Capitol protesting handing over the presidency to the wrong president. And no Democratic Senator who would sponsor them."

Yes, I agree ONE HUNDRED PER CENT. That's when we NEEDED a riot (in support of the Congressional Black Caucus)... and then some.

-Lori Price

[scarletwoman]

12. Old news. DU was abuzz with this at least 2 weeks back.

I've read all kinds of opinions and desconstructions on it -- imho the best, most thorough analysis was at The Black Commentator:
http://blackcommentator.com/76/76_cover_sharpton.html and http://blackcommentator.com/77/77_email.html

<snip>
Every story such as this one, in which small men on transient stages act out petty passions, must be framed by a larger perspective. The overarching corruption in America is centered in the White House, where a racist cabal of pirates and thieves prepares to swamp the coming election in fantastic, unprecedented waves of money. At this writing, George Bush has $91 million dollars in the bank. According to Charles Lewis, author of “The Buying of the President,” Bush’s presidential campaign account swells at the rate of $600,000 per day.

In puny contrast, Al Sharpton finds himself – through his own moral and character flaws – the poor captive of Roger Stone, a rich, cynical, misanthrope who pummels democracy for sport. It is a great irony that the electoral process that Sharpton did so much to enrich, in which his formidable presence deterred white Democrats from reverting to racist type, has resulted in more palatable choices for Black voters, but negligible delegate clout for himself.

Anyway, it's just more sad and sorry evidence of how corrupt our political system is.

I've been committed to Kucinich from the start, and will be voting for him on March 2. But I'm not going to join in on any Sharpton bashing...

sw

[Tinoire]

14. Well said. n/t