I’ve never liked or trusted Al Sharpton. I think he’s shallow and sneaky and deceitful and the ultimate opportunist. And he can be downright dangerous.
All that said, he gave a damned good speech tonight. Certainly a lot better than Dean or Kennedy. The audience was transfixed, and some were crying openly. It seemed like he was ad-libbing a lot, and his 6-minute speech went on for more than 20 minutes. It was lot more intense and damning of Bush than any other speaker so far.
1
By jeremy
Show me a Black minister that can’t speak well, and I’ll show you a fake minister.
I’d be worried if he didn’t speak well. But, that doesn’t change the fact that he’s a lying, racist bastard.
Hymie-town. Tawana Brawley. ‘Nuff Said.
July 28, 2004 @ 10:33 pm | Comment
2
By richard
I know all about it. But credit where it’s due — it was a good speech.
July 28, 2004 @ 10:36 pm | Comment
3
By Conrad
Arrggghhh!
Fuck, you make me want to scream sometimes!
I just read the post above, in which you (justifiabiably) opine that Jerry Falwell should not be speaking at the Rebuplican Convention.
Then, one friggin post later, you praise the speech of the loathsome, race-hustling, slandering, fraudster Sharpton, who is actually responsible, through his rabble rousing, for getting people killed.
If Falwell doesn’t belong on the stage at the Republicn Convention (and I agree swith you that he doesn’t), then Sharpton doesn’t at the Democratic either. What Sharpton did to Steven Pagones and the merchants at Freddy’s Fashion Mart and the crop he pulled in the Tawana Brawley fiasco exceeds Falwell’s crimes.
I think partisanship is causing you to adopt some pretty glaring double-standards.
July 29, 2004 @ 2:33 am | Comment
4
By george
savagious american animals die!!!!!
July 29, 2004 @ 4:06 am | Comment
5
By george
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/26/content_1648717.htm
look how american officer treat chinese visiters, now i understand, why there are so many many people hate amcerican, only because they are arrigant animal, even 90% hate american, which they said every american like to use the word “I” so often, as if everything american said is correct, i wish more bomb and attack the white house and NY city. let more and more american die!!!!!!
July 29, 2004 @ 4:29 am | Comment
6
By Tom - Daai Tou Laam
There were the moments that made me wonder if the organisers weren’t going to pull the microphone on him. Like when he started to wander off towards the 40 acres and a mule.
But it was one helluva moving speech and took those anemic softballs Bush threw out at the Urban League and smashed ’em out of the park.
July 29, 2004 @ 4:40 am | Comment
7
By Conrad
That’s great Tom. Cheer for loathsome racist reptillian gargoyle if you think he can help win votes.
This is sufficiently disguting that I’ve posted on it myself.
You people seriously disappoint me today.
Except George. I wish George would come an comment on my site. Hell, I might pay him for the entertainment value of it.
How about it George. Come visit here (http:gweilodiaries.com) if you think Richard riles you up, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Please . . . .
July 29, 2004 @ 5:26 am | Comment
8
By Henry
Conrad,
With all due respect, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that you can be so upset about Richard praising a man’s speech. Perhaps you hate the man so deeply that the mere mention of his name in the same sentence with something positive sends you into a fit of rage…
There’s nothing wrong with praising a man’s speech and despising the man himself.
If Falwell manages to deliver a good speech for the republicans (as may very well happen), I shall not hesitate to praise it as such. I may even disagree with everything he says in the speech, but if it served its purpose and roused the crowd, etc. etc., then it was a good speech. Credit where credit is due. All that said, he’s still a $#!+bag and I hope he goes straight to hell.
One of the most famous orators of our time (or of our parents’/grandparents’ time) was Herr Adolf Hitler. He was one of the most foul creatures to ever walk the planet, but he could give one hell of a speech…led millions of Germans to believe that their Fuhrer was a good old chap who was doing good in the world.
That’s what speeches are all about–explosive, completely irrational emotion. If it weren’t so, why have a convention at all? It’d be much easier (and probably more accurate) to read a website to find out what their deal is…
I saw the Sharpton speech this morning (beijing time) and thought it was grand (minus the bits about 40 acres and a mule…).
July 29, 2004 @ 7:52 am | Comment
9
By richard
Conrad, this is what I wrote over at your site:
Conrad, we are in agreement on this one. I wouldn’t have allowed Sharpton to speak, but sometimes we have to yield to political realities. I hate the guy, but his endorsement was important. That’s politics. Meanwhile, it was a damned impressive speech, no matter what we think of the man.
July 29, 2004 @ 8:03 am | Comment
10
By richard
Henry, my last comment and yours cross-posted. Thanks a lot — you said what I wanted to, only you did it a lot better. I hope Conrad noted that I prefaced the post by acknowledging Sharpton’s essential vileness, and was simply saying he gave a good speech. But sometimes you can’t reason with Republicans (kidding, Conrad).
July 29, 2004 @ 8:25 am | Comment
11
By george
Conrad, go to hell, and get out of Hongkong, it is part of china now, you son of bitch, i did not see any main media report this in bloody US, get out!!! and go to hell, all of your family!!!
i am not following CCP government, i never said it is good, neither is US and aggragant, son of bitch american!
get out of china, Hongkong and Taiwan and Macau!
July 29, 2004 @ 9:10 am | Comment
12
By george
CCP is devil,. so is american? look how american treat average chinese people, just you son of bitch expats in china, did you ever meet any chinese treat you so brutally like this??? if you ever treated like this, how would you aggragant american animal respond, look at the bitch Conrad, he used to work “bitch” on that poor persecuted woman, did he show any of his humanity, he is no good than the bloody CCP, go to hell,. all of your family,
July 29, 2004 @ 9:19 am | Comment
13
By george
don’t show how you care about human right, just look at what concrad wrote “Lucky bitch. If she was in China not only would not of the single things that I mentioned be true” , this is how he shows impathy to that woman!!!he is no differrence from the devil CCP, there is no famous medias in US reported this descrimination savage crime, not a piece on CNN, NYTIMES, WASHINGTONPOST ETC, you guys are such all the same, fake human rights protectors, actually i would say, you are all losers, then coming to poor asia, and pretend you are god to save people here. bitch~!
July 29, 2004 @ 9:40 am | Comment
14
By Jim
I dont see this as a great speech. FDR gave great speeeches. Hitler, Sharpton and Falwell merely give good performances – like actors on a stage. All noise and bombast, but pretty much all make believe.
Great speeches are uplifting and encourage people to rise above themselves.
Have George’s meds run out???
July 29, 2004 @ 1:47 pm | Comment
15
By richard
I truly believe Sharpton’s speech falls under “great” as you define it. Hitler’s best speeches were as well, getting peope to accept all kinds of sacrifice for what was sold them them as a noble idea. I’m not saying, in any way, that what they advocated was good or bad, right or wrong — just that they gave great speeches.
July 29, 2004 @ 2:35 pm | Comment
16
By Conrad
Henry:
Shaprton, by dint of his hideous past, should not have been on stage giving a speech to be admired or criticized.
That he was is a very bad reflection on the Democratic Party.
Look at it this way, I would never have voted for Kerry. Had Lieberman been the nominee, I would probably have favored him over Bush. Until last night. The Democrats would have lost my vote by putting the odious Sharpton on the stageand then screaming for his clap-trap.
I tore Trent Lott a new one for his bigoted statements and called for his immediate resignation a majority leader. Sharpton is much, much, mcuh worse. Sad to see the failure to denounce him here.
July 29, 2004 @ 9:57 pm | Comment
17
By richard
Conrad, Sharpton is a sleazeball, but he’s an important leader to many blacks and he had to be included. It’s politics, and no one’s holding it against the Democrats, except indignant Republicans who close their eyes to their own president’s embrace of, say, characters like Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, an outspoken anti-Zionist and an avid anti-Semite. Politics makes for strange bedfellows; get used to it.
July 29, 2004 @ 10:21 pm | Comment
18
By Henry
Conrad,
Despite our mutual sentiments regarding Sharpton’s moral character (I think we’ve already denounced him ad nauseum), such should have absolutely no bearing as to the quality of speech the man gave, which I shall remind you, is what this post and my comment were all about.
Regarding the point you raise about whether or not Sharpton should have been at the convention giving that speech, I have mixed sentiments. One the one hand, I recognize that he’s a very bad human being for the things he’s done. By that right, he should not have been on stage giving a speech anywhere in this world. However, I also recognize that, as Richard mentioned, it’s a POLITICAL convention. As such, its purpose is to rally its supporters and garner the votes of the nation.
People have diverse backgrounds and political sensitivities. To some, Sharpton represents a man in a position of influence that purports to represent people like them and their interests. Does he actually represent those interests effectively or credibly? Most likely not, but those people will cast their votes with him and his party just the same. Sharpton is a tool of the party—great at giving rousing speeches and garnering the votes of a certain demographic. Sign him up. Sounds awfully Machiavellian? Sure, but I’m afraid that’s just how it works.
To steal a phrase from Jeremy above, show me a political party that doesn’t sleaze well and I’ll show you a fake political party (with no power). That being said, feel free to find and vote for a morally righteous party come November…well I guess you’ll probably have to start your own.
July 30, 2004 @ 3:20 am | Comment
19
By Jim
Exactly how did Sharpton come to be called a “leader of the Black Community”? He didn’t even win the election when he ran in New York City. White liberal Democrats started sucking up to him because of his ability to draw a crowd and spew the same line of hatred they espouse. Imagine the reaction if the Grand Dragon of the KKK made a speech at any GOP event – no matter the technical merits of that speech.
The Dems repeatedly show their willingness to toady to any and all political groups to win votes and yet still manage to exclude the very minorities they claim to be representing.
July 30, 2004 @ 3:45 pm | Comment
20
By richard
Jim, if you don’t realize that Al Sharpton is (unfortunately) considered by many black Democrats to be one of their leaders, then you’re out of touch with the black political scene. I can’t stand the guy. But Bush can’t stand Bill Clinton, yet just a few weeks ago he sang his praises at an elaborate photo opp unveiling a portrait of BC for the White House. Politics as usual.
Why on earth do you say the Dems exclude the minorities they claim to represent? What’s this based on?
July 30, 2004 @ 5:13 pm | Comment
21
By Jim
Richard, the observation is based on looking at Dem administrations. W put more minorities in positions of real power in his first six months than the previous 3 Dem administrations. Look at Kerry’s campaign staff – how many non-white staffers are there in the top advisiors?
That said, I am a firm opponent of race based quotas. There are more than enough highly qualified non-white candidates for any position to make the quotas unnecessary.
To me, the Dems seem to trot out the minorities when they are looking for votes or need volunteers in the campaigns. Once in power, the Dems fall back on their good old boy networks. This was also a failing of the GOP, but Bush seems to have gone off in his own direction – as he is wont to do.
August 3, 2004 @ 4:10 pm | Comment