Al Sharpton yet again proves himself unworthy of reverence [emphasis added]:
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.I expect no better of Sharpton — as Tawana Brawley's puppetmaster, he probably feels right at home as a Republican operative's puppet. And I look askance at anyone who expected better of the Bushies. Tell me one thing, though: why in the world does the Democratic Party have to tolerate this?Though Stone and Sharpton have tried to reduce their alliance to a curiosity, suggesting that all they do is talk occasionally, a Voice investigation has documented an extraordinary array of connections. Stone played a pivotal role in putting together Sharpton's pending application for federal matching funds, getting dollars in critical states from family members and political allies at odds with everything Sharpton represents. He's also helped stack the campaign with a half-dozen incongruous top aides who've worked for him in prior campaigns. He's even boasted about engineering six-figure loans to Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN) and allowing Sharpton to use his credit card to cover thousands in NAN costs—neither of which he could legally do for the campaign. In a wide-ranging Voice interview Sunday, Stone confirmed his matching-fund and staffing roles, but refused to comment on the NAN subsidies. ...
The Stone involvement in the Sharpton campaign began in early March at a lunch at Gallagher's, a midtown steak house that Stone frequents. Stone and Sharpton do not disagree that two mutual friends, Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf and anti-Rockefeller-drug-law activist Randy Credico, helped to arrange it. ... Credico said Stone explained his interest in working with Sharpton by saying that they had "a mutual obsession: We both hate the Democratic Party." Stone told Credico that he "would have some fun with Sharpton's campaign" and "bring Terry McAuliffe to his knees." Stone, Credico, and Sheinkopf walked to Stone's apartment after the lunch, and Stone was elated with the tenor of the meeting.
Time to put this trash out on the curb, where it belongs. No more respectful treatment. If he wants to keep up this charade, let him debate Lyndon LaRouche.
Posted by Greg Greene at February 6, 2004 12:35 AM
So let me get this straight.....the straw that broke the camel's back about giving Al Sharpton respectful treatment was cavorting with a Republican? I'm not being snarky......did I read that the wrong way?
BTW, a group of people chanting "let us in" because the Democratic officials were attempting to recount the vote behind closed (and locked) doors isn't a "mob who shut down the Miami-Dade County recount". To say that part of the article was over the top hyperbole (at best) is an understatement.
On a side note....which do you think is more controversial: the most controversial subject over the last 30 years (abortion) or the 2000 election?
Posted by: Ricky at February 6, 2004 06:32 AM
Ricky:
Sharpton always got more respect than he deserved [and he deserved none]. That story from the Voice should just make that crystal clear to any Democrats who, because of political considerations or just sheer ingrained politeness, harbored any doubts.
Posted by: Greg Greene at February 6, 2004 07:09 AM
It'll be scandalous if he gets a place in the next debate (if there are any more). At this point, it should be down to Kerry, Edwards, and Clark.
Posted by: Skip Perry at February 6, 2004 05:03 PM
If Bush is voted out of office in November, and if we get the major snafus in the voting process (the felon lists, the screwy machines, etc.) fixed, I don't think there will be much reason to keep talking about Election 2000.
The only way I see to shut down most of the abortion debate is to have technology that allows for fetal transfers, so all the people who want to ensure that every fetus becomes a baby can take over the pregnancies of all the people who don't want to complete the pregnancy.
I find the former, particularly in the first conditional, a lot more plausible than the latter.
Posted by: PG at February 9, 2004 01:33 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://greenehouse.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/996