What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Op Ed From WSJ - Party of Buttigieg and Sharpton (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Clearly, Wall Street Journal has a Conservative lean.

Thought this was interesting though on a couple of levels. 

The Party of Buttigieg and Sharpton

The mayor seeks the blessing of a dubious Democratic elder.

While Joe Biden is being held to account for things he said and did as long ago as the 1970s, Mayor Pete Buttigieg had lunch in Harlem Monday, seeking the blessing of the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Mr. Buttigieg was only 5 in 1987 when the world outside New York first met Mr. Sharpton, so he may not have a clear sense of how his lunch companion came to wield such influence. Mr. Sharpton was chief spokesman for the family of Tawana Brawley, a black teenager who ran away from home, then falsely claimed she’d been abducted and raped by a gang of white men.

Ms. Brawley’s lawyers, Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason, accused Fishkill police officer Harry Crist Jr. of orchestrating the abduction. Crist couldn’t defend himself because he had committed suicide the same week Ms. Brawley went missing. Mr. Maddox claimed Crist had been murdered by co-conspirators because “he was the weak link of all of the culprits.” Ms. Brawley’s trio of advisers also accused Steven Pagones, the county prosecutor who’d investigated the case, of being part of the gang.

A grand jury determined the abduction was fake and found no evidence that Ms. Brawley had been assaulted. A former aide to Mr. Sharpton admitted in 1988 that the whole thing had been “only a media show.” A decade later Mr. Pagones won a defamation judgment against Ms. Brawley and Messrs. Sharpton, Maddox and Mason.

Mr. Sharpton also has a history of anti-Semitic agitation. In August 1991 an Orthodox Jewish driver ran a red light and swerved into Gavin Cato, an 8-year-old black child, in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights. The following night a mob set upon 29-year-old Yankel Rosenbaum—an Australian student who had nothing to do with the accident—and stabbed him to death. At Gavin’s funeral, Mr. Sharpton caricatured Jews as “diamond dealers” and, according to a report in Newsday, “seemed to scoff . . . at labeling Gavin’s death an accident.” At a rally around the same time, he was quoted as saying: “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”

In the summer of 1995 Mr. Sharpton’s National Action Network held daily protests against Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned Harlem retailer that had a rent dispute with a black-owned subtenant. Protesters screamed about “bloodsucking Jews” and “Jew bastards,” and Mr. Sharpton himself vowed: “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street.” In December Roland Smith, 51, who’d participated in the protests, returned to Freddy’s, brandished a gun, and burned the place down. Smith killed seven people and himself in the attack.

Mr. Buttigieg lunched with Mr. Sharpton Monday in a Harlem that looks almost nothing like it did in 1995. A Kid’s Foot Locker and a Gap Factory Store now stand where Freddy’s once did. Mr. Sharpton looks different too. He’s lost weight and traded his velour track suits for pinstripes, street demonstrations for a hosting gig on MSNBC.

Somehow the media and the Democratic Party have granted Mr. Sharpton the absolution Mr. Biden desperately seeks. And how was lunch, Mr. Mayor?

Mr. Hennessey is the Journal’s deputy editorial features editor.


Thoughts?

I guess it's an old one now but does Sharpton just get a :shrug:   on things similar to the way Trump supporters do with Trump?

Secondly, and I think way more importantly, is does Buttigieg need Sharpton? And if so, how does he navigate it?

 
I guess it's an old one now but does Sharpton just get a :shrug:   on things similar to the way Trump supporters do with Trump?
Sharpton created a false allegation that created racial strife and wasted police resources, and IIRC he also basically initiated a race riot in Crown Heights. So yeah in principle people who engage in racist themes and deceive law enforcement need to be defeated and kept out of office. Al Sharpton currently has a tv show one day a week on Msnbc and I take it engages in some sort of political fundraising or endorsement game. Reject him.

 Secondly, and I think way more importantly, is does Buttigieg need Sharpton? And if so, how does he navigate it?
No. I think it shows Buttigieg's lack of experience that he feels he needs to counter Biden's AA support this way. Sharpton has never shown he can deliver support in most places. 

I also think considering what we have going on right now in the US Senate is important, (eta and as TF indicates below what is going on in America is important), and old soap sellers like Sharpton are not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My thoughts are that conservative efforts to co-opt anti-Semitism for political gain while peddling the actual anti-Semitism that led to the Pittsburgh mass murder make me want to retch. As a Jew I'll take Al Sharpton any day of the week over any of the duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans.

 
My thoughts are that conservative efforts to co-opt anti-Semitism for political gain while peddling the actual anti-Semitism that led to the Pittsburgh mass murder make me want to retch. As a Jew I'll take Al Sharpton any day of the week over any of the duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans.
Interesting. Thanks for your perspective. 

For Buttigieg, he's not looking for the blessing of the "garbage humans" you describe (interesting choice of words). Does him associating with Sharpton give you any pause?

 
If I were a candidate I wouldn't look for Sharpton's approval or a photo OP with him. To me he is damaged goods and can only taint a campaign. Further he has shown no ability to deliver votes or be a kingmaker in African American politics. So I don't get why people bother. On the flipside I also think the people who would decide not to vote for you due to meeting with him weren't going to vote for you for some reason anyway.

 
Interesting. Thanks for your perspective. 

For Buttigieg, he's not looking for the blessing of the "garbage humans" you describe (interesting choice of words). Does him associating with Sharpton give you any pause?
Sorry for the language, but it's hard to really exaggerate how sickening the obvious bad faith efforts of conservatives to co-opt anti-Semitism are to me and many other Jews given recent events and conservative reactions to them.  I'm not sure "garbage humans" does it justice, honestly. It's nauseating.

Anyway, I don't trust the WSJ portrayal of Sharpton, obviously, and I honestly don't know enough about him to pass judgment on my own. Based on my limited knowledge of Sharpton I'd say I don't like him but I don't mind others conferring with him. Plenty of politicians have lunched with people far worse than Sharpton without catching any flak for it.

Buttigeig's stance on vaccinations, on the other hand ... :no:

 
On the flipside I also think the people who would decide not to vote for you due to meeting with him weren't going to vote for you for some reason anyway.
I don't disagree. Although I don't really think at this point we're in the "won't vote / will vote" stage. It feels like now it's more exploratory as people get to know the lesser known candidates. And I think there's a huge human nature element of association. The "friend of yours is a friend of mine" thing. So I think who people ask for blessing from / associate with matters a great deal from the perspective of forming an opinion on a person. 

 
I don't disagree. Although I don't really think at this point we're in the "won't vote / will vote" stage. It feels like now it's more exploratory as people get to know the lesser known candidates. And I think there's a huge human nature element of association. The "friend of yours is a friend of mine" thing. So I think who people ask for blessing from / associate with matters a great deal from the perspective of forming an opinion on a person. 
Absolutely some truth there. And a couple days of media reminding us of Sharpton's past with your picture there seems like an unnecessary issue to create.

 
And a couple days of media reminding us of Sharpton's past with your picture there seems like an unnecessary issue to create.
Not sure I understand. What is "your picture"? 

Has this been a big story? I just saw this one mention of it buried back in Op Ed section of the printed Wall Street Journal. 

 
Not sure I understand. What is "your picture"? 

Has this been a big story? I just saw this one mention of it buried back in Op Ed section of the printed Wall Street Journal. 
I mean the candidate sitting at Sylvia's with Sharpton. There were a lot of professional cameras there. I assume those pictures got put up in more than the WSJ. 

 
I mean the candidate sitting at Sylvia's with Sharpton. There were a lot of professional cameras there. I assume those pictures got put up in more than the WSJ. 
Ok. I don't know. I just saw the one article in WSJ. I do think it's a pretty important thing. Although maybe I do put more stock on the "who you associate" with angle. If I were him, I'd pour everything into an Oprah endorsement. 

 
Ok. I don't know. I just saw the one article in WSJ. I do think it's a pretty important thing. Although maybe I do put more stock on the "who you associate" with angle. If I were him, I'd pour everything into an Oprah endorsement. 
Well as I've said in the Pete thread I dont think Oprah can hurt you and it probably would help garner some attention for a candidate I don't think that its game changing. Democratic primary voters have said in several polls that race, sex and age aren't important to them when selecting a candidate. Even women and minorities. Further while they like Oprah they are very clear they dont want her to get involved in a run. So if you don't think she should run by large margins does her political opinion hold much sway? It's an interesting question.

 
I've mentioned in other threads that I think it's amazing that Al Sharpton has a prime-time television show on a major network.  On a personal-background level, he's at least as bad as anybody on Fox.

Edit: That said, I don't care much about Buttigieg meeting with him.  Unfortunately Al Sharpton is a significant figure in the Democratic party, and candidates are going to have to court the guy.  There are plenty of unsavory characters in GOP circles that play a similar role.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well as I've said in the Pete thread I dont think Oprah can hurt you and it probably would help garner some attention for a candidate I don't think that its game changing. Democratic primary voters have said in several polls that race, sex and age aren't important to them when selecting a candidate. Even women and minorities. Further while they like Oprah they are very clear they dont want her to get involved in a run. So if you don't think she should run by large margins does her political opinion hold much sway? It's an interesting question.
I'd just disagree there. I think an endorsement from Oprah Winfrey is miles from a "can't hurt". I think she's a huge influence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah Sharpton’s a bad guy. He’s improved his image over the last decade, shed his extremism in the same way he’s shed his weight, but I sense it’s still there. 

I don’t mind Buttigieg meeting with him though. Buttigieg and Bernie have a real problem: their support is white white white. That’s fine in the GOP but with Democrats it only takes you so far. You have to make inroads with the black vote to win. That being said, I don’t know how much impact the African-American community of Harlem has on the African-American communities of the south, which is what Buttigieg has to win over. 

 
I'd just disagree there. I think an endorsement from Oprah Winfrey is miles from a "can't hurt". I think she's a huge influence.
Well like I said its certainly an interesting question. When she was on TV every day was one thing. There are a lot of people who havent seen a lot of her in the last few years. I mean to older folks she probably has more cachet then to the younger crowd. And the younger crowd is steadily becoming the majority of voters. Are people under 35 really that moved by her opinion? Not sure.

 
Sorry for the language, but it's hard to really exaggerate how sickening the obvious bad faith efforts of conservatives to co-opt anti-Semitism are to me and many other Jews given recent events and conservative reactions to them.  I'm not sure "garbage humans" does it justice, honestly. It's nauseating.

Anyway, I don't trust the WSJ portrayal of Sharpton, obviously, and I honestly don't know enough about him to pass judgment on my own. Based on my limited knowledge of Sharpton I'd say I don't like him but I don't mind others conferring with him. Plenty of politicians have lunched with people far worse than Sharpton without catching any flak for it.

Buttigeig's stance on vaccinations, on the other hand ... :no:


Mayor Pete has had a bad couple of days. No reason he should have met with Sharpton. He should distance himself from Al. And then the vaccinations stance. Very strange. 

Purely anecdotal, but these two moves have hurt his support amongst hard core supporters that I know. Will be interesting to see if they affect his polling.

 
Yeah Sharpton’s a bad guy. He’s improved his image over the last decade, shed his extremism in the same way he’s shed his weight, but I sense it’s still there. 

I don’t mind Buttigieg meeting with him though. Buttigieg and Bernie have a real problem: their support is white white white. That’s fine in the GOP but with Democrats it only takes you so far. You have to make inroads with the black vote to win. That being said, I don’t know how much impact the African-American community of Harlem has on the African-American communities of the south, which is what Buttigieg has to win over. 


There are better ways to build AA support than meeting with Al Sharpton. 

 
Well like I said its certainly an interesting question. When she was on TV every day was one thing. There are a lot of people who havent seen a lot of her in the last few years. I mean to older folks she probably has more cachet then to the younger crowd. And the younger crowd is steadily becoming the majority of voters. Are people under 35 really that moved by her opinion? Not sure.
Oprah remains one of the most respected, well liked Americans. So yeah her endorsement will be important. 

But it can never have the effect it had in 2007. That was historic, because she made black people believe that for the first time a black man had a legitimate shot to be President. She really was a kingmaker in that election. 

 
Oprah remains one of the most respected, well liked Americans. So yeah her endorsement will be important. 

But it can never have the effect it had in 2007. That was historic, because she made black people believe that for the first time a black man had a legitimate shot to be President. She really was a kingmaker in that election. 
I can absolutely agree with your second paragraph. The first I'm not so sure if she is more important than a number of others. But again it certainly can't hurt you with anyone not already inclined to vote against you. And at this stage in a crowded field finding the spotlight in any news cycle is good. 

 
Well like I said its certainly an interesting question. When she was on TV every day was one thing. There are a lot of people who havent seen a lot of her in the last few years. I mean to older folks she probably has more cachet then to the younger crowd. And the younger crowd is steadily becoming the majority of voters. Are people under 35 really that moved by her opinion? Not sure.
That's a fair point. I watch so much TV I didn't know she wasn't on anymore... :bag:  

I guess we'll see. 

I still think it would be a huge endorsement. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Sorry for the language, but it's hard to really exaggerate how sickening the obvious bad faith efforts of conservatives to co-opt anti-Semitism are to me and many other Jews given recent events and conservative reactions to them.  I'm not sure "garbage humans" does it justice, honestly. It's nauseating.

Anyway, I don't trust the WSJ portrayal of Sharpton, obviously, and I honestly don't know enough about him to pass judgment on my own. Based on my limited knowledge of Sharpton I'd say I don't like him but I don't mind others conferring with him. Plenty of politicians have lunched with people far worse than Sharpton without catching any flak for it.

Buttigeig's stance on vaccinations, on the other hand ... :no:
Using a broad term of "vaccinations" can encompass everything from the flu shot to the MMR and is a bit disingenuous. I think ALL children/people should get vaccinated against the biggies (mumps, measles, rubella), but I for one never get a flu shot because the one time I did I got sick all winter. Tetanus shots? Yes. HPV? Eh, maybe but not quite as crucial. I think there needs to be discernment made between ones that are just ridiculous to not get versus ones that may not be as vital.

 
i think there is a distinction to be made between Sharpton the 80's and 90's instigator and Sharpton the MSNBC commentator of the the past few years. Breaking bread with him now is different likely than it was 30 years ago. As someone who lived in NYC during those years, I think he's more complicated than most of you give him credit for.  
Actually, I think the 80's and 90's were the point as the writer wondered why Biden was feeling the heat things he did then compared to Sharpton. Aside from the obvious answer that Biden is running for President and Sharpton was just having the ring kissed by Buttigieg running for President. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
saintfool said:
He's no Franklin Graham, amirite?
That will be interesting to see what kind of role guys like Graham and Falwell play for having the ring kissed in the 2024 election.
I have no doubt that Trump will try to use Graham and Falwell Jr. anytime that he can (with "use" being a synonym for "exploit", "manipulate" and "consume", in this case).

I do think it's worth noting that there is one clear distinction between a guy like Sharpton and guys like Graham & Falwell: Sharpton's reputation doesn't take a hit when he meets with politicians. Everyone already knows that he's a huckster, and everyone already knows that a meeting with him is akin to a meeting with a slimy lobbyist who promises to deliver a voting bloc in exchange for some kind of back scratching.

But most mainstream Christians didn't have those thoughts about Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell Jr.......until 2016. Their reputations have been forever tarnished by their unholy allegiance to a blasphemer. They have proven to be adherents of Transactional Christianity -- where perceived salvation is not based on sin, penitence, or redemption; but based solely on "what can you do for me".

 
saintfool said:
He's no Franklin Graham, amirite?
:shrug:

This is a thread about Sharpton.  If you want to compare and contrast him with others that might be a topic for a different thread. I’ll just mark you down as pro-Sharpton. 

 
Interesting. Thanks for your perspective. 

For Buttigieg, he's not looking for the blessing of the "garbage humans" you describe (interesting choice of words). Does him associating with Sharpton give you any pause?
How is anybody supposed to take your “rules” seriously when you literally thank people for a perspective that includes calling conservatives “duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans”?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That isn't what he did.
Are you saying he didn't call anyone “duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans”?
What he said was that he would take Sharpton over duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans. (here is the link if you've forgotten)

He didn't actually call anyone a duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human.

Granted, it's likely that he had certain conservatives in mind when he used that phrase, but since we now live in the Bill Barr world of semantics, weasel words and context shifting, it would be inappropriate to state that he actually called any conservatives a "duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human".

 
What he said was that he would take Sharpton over duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans. (here is the link if you've forgotten)

He didn't actually call anyone a duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human.

Granted, it's likely that he had certain conservatives in mind when he used that phrase, but since we now live in the Bill Barr world of semantics, weasel words and context shifting, it would be inappropriate to state that he actually called any conservatives a "duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human".
And in the context he was discussing anti-semites peddling information that led to murders...but nice to see my shadow is still there.

 
What he said was that he would take Sharpton over duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans. (here is the link if you've forgotten)

He didn't actually call anyone a duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human.

Granted, it's likely that he had certain conservatives in mind when he used that phrase, but since we now live in the Bill Barr world of semantics, weasel words and context shifting, it would be inappropriate to state that he actually called any conservatives a "duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human".
If he didn't call anyone "a duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human" then he's saying he would take everyone over Sharpton.  That's a weird way of saying it.  And goes back to the original point before we got sho's gymnastics involved.  Joe posted this morning in the locked thread that they've asked all posters to stop calling people these kinds of things.  Fair question.

 
What he said was that he would take Sharpton over duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans. (here is the link if you've forgotten)

He didn't actually call anyone a duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human.

Granted, it's likely that he had certain conservatives in mind when he used that phrase, but since we now live in the Bill Barr world of semantics, weasel words and context shifting, it would be inappropriate to state that he actually called any conservatives a "duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human".
If he didn't call anyone "a duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human" then he's saying he would take everyone over Sharpton. 
Uh, no. That's....not how the English language works.

 
If he didn't call anyone "a duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage human" then he's saying he would take everyone over Sharpton.  That's a weird way of saying it.  And goes back to the original point before we got sho's gymnastics involved.  Joe posted this morning in the locked thread that they've asked all posters to stop calling people these kinds of things.  Fair question.
:thumbup:

 
Joe Bryant said:
That will be interesting to see what kind of role guys like Graham and Falwell play for having the ring kissed in the 2024 election.
Here’s the thing about guys like Graham (and this actually goes for Al Sharpton as well): I’ve never been sure whether they are leaders or followers. 

In other words, Graham’s “influence” is limited to the beliefs of his followers. If Graham endorses Donald Trump, that is important only to the extent that his followers already like Donald Trump (which most of them do.) But if Graham had an ephinany and suddenly decided to endorse Liz Warren, his followers wouldn’t be influenced by that; they’d just abandon him. So given this how much power does Graham actually have? 

On the other hand, let’s say their are 2 Christian Right  candidates for political office with identical views. Now if Graham were to endorse one of them, that endorsement might be decisive, so in this case Graham becomes very powerful. 

So the question of influence is complicated. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
That will be interesting to see what kind of role guys like Graham and Falwell play for having the ring kissed in the 2024 election.
Here’s the thing about guys like Graham (and this actually goes for Al Sharpton as well): I’ve never been sure whether they are leaders or followers. 

In other words, Graham’s “influence” is limited to the beliefs of his followers. If Graham endorses Donald Trump, that is important only to the extent that his followers already like Donald Trump (which most of them do.) But if Graham had an ephinany and suddenly decided to endorse Liz Warren, his followers wouldn’t be influenced by that; they’d just abandon him. So given this how much power does Graham actually have? 

On the other hand, let’s say their are 2 Christian Right  candidates for political office with identical views. Now if Graham were to endorse one of them, that endorsement might be decisive, so in this case Graham becomes very powerful. 

So the question of influence is complicated. 
Graham and Falwell may not be able to convince their followers to vote for a Democrat, but they can certainly steer them towards the Republican of their choosing.

Actually, that was probably more true in 2016 than it is today. I think both of them have sullied their reputations. But in 2016, they had a significant amount of power -- enough to deliver a solid voting bloc to whichever Republican candidate promised them the most pieces of silver.

 
How is anybody supposed to take your “rules” seriously when you literally thank people for a perspective that includes calling conservatives “duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans”?
:confused:  are you talking to me?

If so, can you elaborate on exactly what you're saying?

 
My thoughts are that conservative efforts to co-opt anti-Semitism for political gain while peddling the actual anti-Semitism that led to the Pittsburgh mass murder make me want to retch. As a Jew I'll take Al Sharpton any day of the week over any of the duplicitous bigot-enabling garbage humans.


Interesting. Thanks for your perspective.

For Buttigieg, he's not looking for the blessing of the "garbage humans" you describe (interesting choice of words). Does him associating with Sharpton give you any pause?


Sorry for the language, but it's hard to really exaggerate how sickening the obvious bad faith efforts of conservatives to co-opt anti-Semitism are to me and many other Jews given recent events and conservative reactions to them.  I'm not sure "garbage humans" does it justice, honestly. It's nauseating.

Anyway, I don't trust the WSJ portrayal of Sharpton, obviously, and I honestly don't know enough about him to pass judgment on my own. Based on my limited knowledge of Sharpton I'd say I don't like him but I don't mind others conferring with him. Plenty of politicians have lunched with people far worse than Sharpton without catching any flak for it.

Buttigeig's stance on vaccinations, on the other hand ... :no:

 
Again. He was calling people who co-opt anti semitism and do things that led to a deadly shooting things. Not conservatives in general.  What is your objection with that?  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top