Semi-Daily Journal

Well, my advice on Sharpton is a bit like the classic movie scene where the intrepid hero receives guidance over the telephone on how to defuse a bomb:

"Cut the green wire."

"OK, got it."

"After you cut the yellow wire."

"Oops".

I don't think the Democrats have a good way of dealing with Al. This is a search for the least bad way out.

EXCERPT: The problem with treating Sharpton as just one more anti-war lefty is that that is not who he is...

END EXCERPT

Well, my view is that Sharpton will be what he needs to be to get attention. Better one of several anti-war candidates then the lone racial agitator.

Now, if Harold Ford had been elevated there would be an obvious moderate firewall.

With the Democratic Party as currently constituted, Harold Ford will face a withering assault if he runs for national office; a black Democrat who is not sufficiently left cannot be tolerated by the race-baiters. I look forward to Prof. Delong explaining why he can no longer be a Democrat, if his party deigns to recognize the anti-semitic inciter of violent murder that is Al Sharpton as a national leader, with the spotlight that such a position affords.

If the right can be forced to waste energy explaining away Jerry Falwell, the left can deal with Al.

The Falwell-Sharpton debates will set an interesting precedent...

I find that conservatives spend far more time on the Sharpton issue than anyone else. This is because they are blatantly hoping for this to become a wedge issue for democrats.

What democrat is really afraid of Sharpton. Sharpton can't win the democratic mayoral nomination in New York city! The man will have his say in the primaries, he will not win any states, he will be treated at the convention according to the number of states he wins.

Sharpton ran for US Senate and outpolled Elizabeth Holtzman, ending her political career.

The black vote is the cornerstone of the Democratic electorate. Anything that threatens to split, distract or diminish it is a major threat to the Democrats.

Did anyone see Sharpton's speech at the Democratic cattle call this past weekend? I hate to say this, but it was masterful and probably the best speech at the entire two-day meeting (the worst being a tie between Carol Mosley-Braun and Dennis Kucinich). I dislike Sharpton more than anyone in the field (even more than Kucinich and Gephardt), and I tried so hard to hate his speech but couldn't.

That said, I'm voting for John Edwards or Bob Graham or Wesley Clark. Everyone else in the field will LOSE to George W. Bush, especially John Kerry (who is very unpleasant in person I hear and is hated by the Washington press corps). Kerry seems all but ready to go through the same character smearing that Gore was put through in 2000. I can't see Kerry carrying any of the 2000 Bush states with the possible exception of New Hampshire (though Bush will probably gain some of the Gore states). Maybe John Edwards or Bob Graham or Wesley Clark aren't the greatest people or have the best policies in the field, but I don't know of any others who have a better chance of ousting Bush.

The Democrats should treat Sharpton like the Republicans treated Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes: as an extremist with a narrow base unless he can prove otherwise. If Sharpton can poll 15% or so in the polls then there may be reason for concern but there is no reason to legitimize him. He is not going to do well in NH, Iowa, nor I suspect in South Carolina if Edwards, Graham and Mosely-Braun run.

So far most of the attention devoted to Al comes from Republicans. Hs Fox News focused more on any other Democratic candidate? That should tell us something.

That's exactly right. Sharpton's opponents and the party will needlessly create ill-will among Sharpton's constituency if they shoot down a campaign that, under its own power and unimpeded, couldn't possibly take flight anyway.

He's an ethnic "machine" politician whose modus operandi is to promise the moon to people and bask in their gratitude when he gives them green cheese, all the while stirring up a little bit of panic and bad feeling toward the historic enemies of his constituency. There are four or five light-skinned Sharptons with power bases in the Democratic party, so why do we care about the only black one?

Not to defend anyone else, but to my knowledge Sharpton is the only announced candidate who has incited a murderous firebombing. Perphaps some consider incitement of murder unremarkable, at least when engaged in by a Democrat. Also, is there another candidate that has used such charming codewords as "diamond merchants" when engaging in anti-semitic demagoguery? I wonder what Prof. DeLong would post in response if the the Republican Party were to reserve a speaking spot at the their national convention (as the Democrats are nearly certain to do at theirs) for a candidate who referred to Hispanics as "lazy beaners".

For those not familiar with all this, the "diamond merchant" comment came from the Reverend amid the Crown Heights, Brooklyn NY pogrom in 1991.

During three days of attacks, a rabbinical student was stabbed to death by a mob chanting "kill the Jew", and Jewish property was targeted for vandalization and arson.

Actually, a better analogy would be the Republican Party giving a speaking slot at their convention to a candidate who had incited the murderous bombing of a Birmingham Church. Perhaps a Democrat in this forum could explain why the incitement of the murder of Jews is more tolerable than the incitement of the murder of blacks. What does it say about the Democratic Party, or it's constituency, that it is seen as tolerable that an inciter of murder is given a place on the stage with other candidates? What can one take from a situation in which the other candidates are so desperate for political success that they are unwilling to plainly say what a disgrace it is to appear in a civil political forum with a person who believes the incitement of murder to be a legitimate political tactic?

“There are four or five light-skinned Sharptons with power bases in the Democratic party, so why do we care about the only black one?”

That is simply false. There are absolutely no Democrat national figures running for national office of any race as goofy as Al Sharpton. He has absolutely no chance of winning the democrat nomination. Still, this scum bag will indeed destroy the hope of the more moderate candidates. He will force the Democrats to publicly deal with such incendiary issues as racial reparations---and that will only help the Republican Party.

Thanks Will and Bucky for proving our point. Only conservatives spend time considering the Sharpton issue because they want it to be divisive.

He has a small base of support and his candidacy will fall on its (and his) weaknesses. Sharpton will NOT get to speak at the convention I'd wager. And when he doesn't speak conservatives will say, "See, dems don't let blacks speak at their convention. They don't really care about blacks". Your hypocrisy is getting predictable and tiresome.

"Only conservatives spend time considering the Sharpton issue because they want it to be divisive."

Yup, I'm sure that the other Democrat candidates don't spend even one second thinking about Al Sharpton. I also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

>Only conservatives spend time considering the Sharpton issue because they want it to be divisive.

This is the only net venue I've seen where people are routinely disparaged for posting simple factual information.

Are folks angry at Dr. DeLong for posting this thread too?

Dan, I'm not a conservative, so your remarks pertaining to that effect are rather pointless. If you wish to make a wager on Sharpton speaking to the Democratic National Convention, name your stakes. He is an anti-semitic demagogue who has incited murder, but he is also a more effective politician than many of his opponents, and his consituency is important enough to make it impossible for the DNC to ignore him if he picks up delegates in the primaries, as he undoubtedly will. Tell me, if not for his race, would the other candidates tolerate appearing with a person who had incited murder? If so, could you please tell us exactly what behavior is considered intolerable within the Democratic Party? Mind you, I don't think the Republican Party is any bastion of principle; I just find it ironic to see the party which always tosses about charges of racism engaged in the fulsome ass-kissing of a anti-semite who has incited murder against those he charmingly labeled "white interlopers".

Will, if Sharpton gets a substantial percentage of the primary vote, then he would demand a slot, and the Democrats have to either deny it to Sharpton or come up on stage and rightfully condemn him for all the despicable things he has said or done. That would be an embarrasment to the party at their national showcase; especially given the reprehensible precedent from the glory days of that anti-semitic bigot Pat Buchanan and the Republican conventions of past.

The only way Sharpton is going to be in such a position is if someone attacks him now and elevates him into a position of relevance. Ignoring him, or better yet, letting Sharpton make the case for his own credibility given his past history is the surest way to prevent him from gaining relevance. The Republicans would love nothing better than to have Sharpton play a prominent role, which is why they have been particularly hyper about putting a spotlight on him. Its a smart tactic, but the smarter response to that is to treat Sharpton as being irrelevant.

So if Sharpton speaks unchallenged at the convention, I will gladly apologize to you for his conduct unitl then you will have to save the analogies with your hypothetical chucrh burning Republican Klan candidate.

Its a free country, anyone can run in a primary, and front runners don't waste their breath challenging kooks. If you can find me speeches where Bush ripped into the outrageously homophobic Keyes or the outrageously xenophobic Buchanan when he was a front runner, then I would say that Kerry and Edwards should come out and rip Sharpton.

I am endlessly amused by the fact that Republican blogs and Fox News are infatuated with Sharpton, Mosely-Braun and Gary Hart! In fact I would say I am encouraged by this focus on the fringe.

And David Thomspn, forgive me if I don't devote as much time responding to you as I do to Will Allen. Given your history I am not in the least surprised if you believe that all black people love Sharpton and therefore the Democrats should seriously be worried. Think about it, this is a guy who could not come close to winning a democratic primary in New York City! And such a clown will do well in the rest of the country. Please.

So is Professor DeLong developing conservative biases in his old age: "I am endlessly amused by the fact that Republican blogs and Fox News are infatuated with Sharpton . . "

Like a lot of other people, I wish Reverend Sharpton would just go away, but he won't.

It does seem very strange to be discussing Presidental Election politics in such detail when the New Hampshire primary is still almost a year away.

For whatever it's worth, I'd like to see Senator Lieberman rediscover his backbone; go back to being open-minded on vouchers and a few other contentious issues and be the Democratic "John McCain". I don't know if he could win the primary running that way, but I think he could win the November election, and it would make the campaign a lot more fun to watch.

achilles, Sharpton has won as much as 32% of the vote in a NYC Democratic Primary, and he is becoming a more effective politician all the time; this is what makes him dangerous. In the recent joint appearance of Democratic candidates, many non-Republican observers remarked that Sharpton was the most effective speaker. As to Buchanon and Keyes, as offensive as some of their rhetoric has been (I'm far more familiar with Buchanon), neither one has gone so far as to incite murder, as Sharpton has done. If a Republican candidate engages in such activity, it is up to the prominent party members to clearly state that such behavior is intolerable in a civil society, and refuse to appear in public with such a person. Now, if the candidate who had incited murder was popular with a crucial constituency within the Republican base, the Republicans may well behave exactly as the Democrats are now; I am not among those who attribute moral superiority to major American political parties. It is the Democrats, however, who now have a politically savvy advocate of murder in their midst, and it is their responsibility to deal with him.

"The Democrats should treat Sharpton like the Republicans treated Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes: as an extremist with a narrow base unless he can prove otherwise."

Not a chance, because the Democrats' racial entitlement policies mandate that Sharpton be treated with respect.

Read Andrew Cuomo's bitter words about how he couldn't say anything critical about Carl McCall in the NYS's last Democratic race for the gubernatorial nomination, because doing so would have destroyed his career in Democratic politics, so that he had to drop out. And McCall was such a disaster as a candidate he almost came in *third* in a state that is 3-2 Democrat. This racial entitlement politics is what's kept the Democrats from electing a governor of NY or mayor of NYC in more than a decade, in spite of their huge majority in registered voters.

Sharpton is the King of this. He personally sank Mark Green's run for mayor when he didn't get the payoffs he wanted, gladly playing the race card against the Democrats, so Bloomberg was able to come back from 20 points down -- another Republican mayor. Al doesn't want to get elected to anything, he wants to promote his own power and will gladly sink any Democrat (or all of them) if it makes him more of a force to be reckoned with. Which, of course, it always does.

"Did anyone see Sharpton's speech at the Democratic cattle call this past weekend? I hate to say this, but it was masterful and probably the best speech at the entire two-day meeting..."

Al's a wonderful demagogue, he truly is, when not wearing a wire for the FBI or pulling off a Tawana hoax or inciting a firebombing. And if you ask him about such events he'll give you such a speech that you genuinely feel like a bad person for even thinking about them -- and others will think you are a bad person too. How could you pick on a minority like him?

"There are four or five light-skinned Sharptons with power bases in the Democratic party, so why do we care about the only black one?"

Because race makes a *big* difference in Democratic politics. Ask Andrew Cuomo or Mark Green.

"So far most of the attention devoted to Al comes from Republicans..."

Are you kidding? NY Dems have been trying to find a way to deal with Al for a decade and haven't come up with anything yet. You out-of-state Dems are going to have fun as you get to know him better.

I'll tell you this: if racial entitlement politics takes over the national Democratic party the way it has the NY party, the Republicans will be in for the next 50 years.

[ObfunwithAl: http://slate.msn.com/id/2062637/]

Will, as to Sharpton's political savvy we will have to wait and see. Winning 150,000 votes in NYC doesn't really put him in the same category as Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Graham or even Dean and Mosely-Braun as a national political vote-getter, your claims about his shrewdness notwithstanding.

If you want to claim that not attacking Sharpton even at this early stage makes Kerry et al. hypocrites then that's your prerogative. The same criticism would, in my opinion, apply to every major party candidate running with fringe nut jobs. In fact it would make it more likely that fringe nut jobs run for office for what better way to get guaranteed press coverage for your views.

So let's talk in 6 months, if Sharpton is still polling high, appearing on stage with candidates, getting lots of press and still not being criticized then I will say you have a valid case.

Until then, all Sharpton is is the latest in the line of racist, anti-semitic or homophobic idiots to run for president: Buchanan, Keyes and now Sharpton.

Not everyone who stands apart from the Democrats wishes to see the Republicans dominate due to their opponents' crashing on racial shoals. The Republicans have enough sufficiently bad ideas, and enough obnoxiously narrow, covetous, consituencies to make their domination due entirely to their opponents' self destruction dangerous. Sharpton needs to be utterly discredited and discarded, but it is difficult to see how that is to come about. Perhaps the nation will get lucky by having Sharpton self-destruct; demagogues often do. I fear, however, that Sharpton's political skills have grown quite astute, and he has become a formidable foe, in terms of exposing him for what he is.

The more I read these blogs, the more I get convinced that the pro-Republican/hawk/libertarian posters here use ad hominem and straw man debating tactics in a way very similar to the way Russian Stalinists treated their opponents, though the Stalinists at least were pursuing their own policies rather than being dupes of the Bush cabal. Recall the role that Trotsky played in dooming many decent Russians who hadn't even met him or read him, courtesy of Stalinist paranoia/ demagoguery.

The latest big bad enemy, after Osama and Saddam Hussein (whose days are apparently too numbered for him to serve much longer as a useful whipping boy/straw man)is now Al Sharpton, and just as the anti-war protesters are dupes of Saddam Hussein, the Democrats are now apologists for Al Sharpton. Grow up. Al Sharpton, large New York primary vote or not, belongs in the dust heap of politics, and given his past history no sane DLC member will allow him to speak at the Dem convention. In the campaign he will be treated as he deserves--his arguments listened to if not accepted, his past brought up, and he will be discredited. Don't hold your breath waiting for Sharpton to help Bush. Knowing the usual waffling of mainstream Democratic presidential candidates, Bush doesn't really need any help, and the 2004 campaign is his to lose.

I said
"The Democrats should treat Sharpton like the Republicans treated Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes: as an extremist with a narrow base unless he can prove otherwise."

To which Jim responds

"Not a chance, because the Democrats' racial entitlement policies mandate that Sharpton be treated with respect."

Ignoring the canned inflammatories, parsing Jim's statement is amusing. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Republican's did not treat Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes with respect? Please. Of course they did. They respectfully ignored them as being irrelevant in the grander scheme of things. They did that for exactly the same reason that the Democrats should ignore Sharpton.

So if I can resort to canned inflammatories myself then I would have to say that the Republicans treated Bauer. Keyes and Buchanan with respect because "the Republicans brand of gay-bashing, xenophobic, anti-semitic politics demanded that they be treated with respect". It woudl be just as perceptive.

"I am not in the least surprised if you believe that all black people love Sharpton and therefore the Democrats should seriously be worried. Think about it, this is a guy who could not come close to winning a democratic primary in New York City!"

Did I say every black person? Yet, Al Sharpton has more than enough support to frighten the hell out of the Democrat Party. Oh by the way, have you ever heard of Mark Green? He lost the New York mayor's race almost solely due to the efforts of Al Sharption.

Jim Glass is right. Al Sharpton is the end result of a political tendency that is destroying the Democratic Party: the way it encourages several of its constituencies to think of themselves as victims entitled to special treatment. If this trend continues, the Democrats will cease to function as a national political party. People are tired of that stuff, including a growing number of Black and Hispanic people. It’s an ugly game that demeans all who participate in it.

By contrast the Republicans have mostly cleaned up their act. Trent Lott was purged. Bush's cabinet has several black, Asian, and Hispanic members. They are not tokens either, they're respected, capable people in positions of responsibility. The Republicans have adopted the correct line on racial discrimination. No discrimination and no reverse discrimination.

Keep working on thse talking points Joe Willingham. It sounds like you are close to convincing yourself (and perhaps David Thompson as well).

This is what frightens the Democrat Party:

"After the vote, Sharpton and Ferrer essentially boasted that they had cost Green the election. Television news reports showed the phone wires ripped out of phone banks in the Bronx to underscore the Bronx Democratic machine’s sabotage of the Green campaign."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/nyc-n12.shtml

David, amidst all the talk about how the powerful Sharpton prevented Green from winning the election, aren't you conveniently forgetting that this all-influential figure was playing spoiler to Green because he could not get his own candidate to win the primary?

Here is a very topical piece in today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2707-2003Feb25.html

Some background on the author is here:

http://www.bancroftpress.com/jbarras_bio.html

She names a number of people she would see as attractive moderate black candidates. And here is a classic excerpt:

[Donna] Brazile, who has dedicated herself to reviving the party's traditional base -- women, blacks, left-wing liberals and gays -- may want to fling open the doors for all sorts of riffraff, but blacks who are serious about winning may want to be a bit more deliberative.

OK, in full context her "riff-raff" is Sharpton and Moseley-Braun, but read it quickly out of context and it is brutal.

Will Allen: "If you wish to make a wager on Sharpton speaking to the Democratic National Convention, name your stakes"

I'm good for $20. We can get in touch via email.

Will Allen: "could you please tell us exactly what behavior is considered intolerable within the Democratic Party?"

Going to Bob Jones University to speak to your CONSTITUENTS is intolerable in the democratic party. This is a democracy. Going on stage with someone and debating or exchanging speeches does not constitute unprincipled behavior.

All this talk of murder incitement while the Republican administration is paying off a murderous government in Turkey and giving them the ok to oppress the Kurds even more. Did I say hypocrisy?

Furthermore, Jim Glass, I lived in New York for a couple of years recently. NY politics are so different from the rest of the country. You think a nut like Sharpton will have pull in Iowa and New Hampshire? Even Hillary Clinton voting democrats vote for republican mayors in NY because, frankly, that crazy town needs some law and order.

Sharpton will not speak because he will not have delegates. If you think this is an issue then look up Bill Clinton (The first black president?) and Jesse Jackson in 1992.

I should clarify:

Going to Bob Jones University to speak to your CONSTITUENTS is intolerable behavior in the democratic party. However, in a democracy, candidates going on stage together and debating or exchanging speeches is not unprincipled behavior.

Allow me to summarize this thread:

"Us Republicans know more about Democratic factional politics related to Sharpton than you silly Democrats do."

I'm not sure what point Tom Maguire is trying to make by quoting this:

"Brazile, who has dedicated herself to reviving the party's traditional base -- women, blacks, left-wing liberals and gays -- may want to fling open the doors for all sorts of riffraff, but blacks who are serious about winning may want to be a bit more deliberative."

but the author of that passage is showing some naivete about Brazile's motivations. She is, supposedly, recruiting regionally strong black candidates in order to guarantee that Sharpton does poorly throughout the country without providing him an opportunity for racial demagoguery. There was talk about this on various political blogs last month; here's an article about it: http://www.nysun.com/sunarticle.asp?artID=405 (I'm feeling too lazy to find a better source than the Sun right now).

“David, amidst all the talk about how the powerful Sharpton prevented Green from winning the election, aren't you conveniently forgetting that this all-influential figure was playing spoiler to Green because he could not get his own candidate to win the primary?”

So what? Al Sharpton’s intentions are of secondary importance. The bottom line is that he is greatly responsible for the election of a Republican mayor in New York City. Wow, just think what Sharpton can do for the whole country. I can see it now: George Bush is reelected by a 75% margin, and the Republicans increase their hold on both houses of Congress to the point of veto proofing all of their legislation.

I agree with Jim -- the out-of-state Dems are deluding themselves. The primary's a long way off, of course, but you're wildly underestimating Sharpton, just as Democrats outside of New England are wildly overestimating Howard Dean's chances of getting elected. Sharpton is brilliant at media, he's the best orator in the race, and he is very, very popular with the african-american political establishment, which is one of your key get-out-the-vote mechanisms. The party will be sucking up to him because if they don't, the turnout's going to be sorely disappointing come election day. I don't know if he'll speak at the convention, and it's ludicrous to imagine he'll get the nomination, but he is going to hurt your candidates, and not because of an evil Fox News conspiracy -- I don't think that most of your primary voters watch Fox, but you're still going to see all the other candidates tacking around Sharpton. Especially since your major fundraiser is still Clinton, and Hillary is not going to risk pissing Sharpton off. Now, I don't think there's much else they can do but what they're doing, but ignoring this is not going to make it go away.

You're on for the Andy Jackson, Dan. I hope I lose. I think you are somewhat disingenuous regarding the Democrats' treatment of Sharpton. In the 2000 primary season, Al Gore deigned to have a private meeting with Sharpton, and Mrs. Clinton made a point to be seen associating with him also. Since when is acceptable for the Vice President of the United States to seek electoral advantage by having private meetings with those who incite murder of American citizens? Again, this was not done in the pursuit of foreign policy goals (are you going to now castigate Roosevelt for supporting Stalin?), but purely to pick up a few lousy votes. What would you say if Dick Cheney were to grant a private audience to someone who had incited murderous church bombings? Why does your devotion to a political party cause you to avoid the simple truth that it is unacceptable to grant any degree of legitimacy to those who incite murder on American soil, for reasons of electoral advantage?

http://www.sillysports.com/gifs/hillshrp.jpg

When people who live outside the New York City tabloid and tv markets start writing in and saying that Al Sharpton is all over their tabloids, newspapers or running around giving speeches in their minority neighborhoods I will start believing in the Sharpton problem. Until then, confident pronouncements to the contrary from New Yorkers notwithstanding, its all hype.

Sharpton is reportedly spending a lot of time in South Carolina, which has an early primary and a large black electorate.

Was this reported in the NY press ;)

Well lets see what happens in South Carolina then. Something tells me that rural minority voters in South Carolina don't get fired up about the same issues that urban minority New Yorkers do, but hey, I guess you are thinking one minority voter is just like another. In any case I am not as confident in my soothsaying abilities as you conservatives are.

And by the way since you guys can pretty much tell exactly who's going to be popular where, fill the rest of us in on who's going to win would ya?

http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:Exnv_J__Y5AC:www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1724120+sharpton+carolina&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Above links an AP piece discussing Sharpton's campaigning, with a reference to South Carolina, to boot!

And you can't beat the Iowa Electronic Markets for forecasting:

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/

That AP piece is pretty dated. The IEM is reallly interesting, had never really visited that before. Thanks. You should suggest that they open up a "Will Al Sharpton speak at the Demo. Convention" market and we can see whose prophecies are more likely to come true!

"So let's talk in 6 months, if Sharpton is still polling high..."

Missing the point. Sharpton doesn't have to poll "high" and doesn't expect to. I mean, it's not like he's running to get elected. He just intends to poll enough to become a person of greater value and influence. As a local paper that follows him put it, the HNIC.
http://www.nypress.com/16/8/news&columns/feature.cfm

Ralph Nader never polled high in 2000. How much do you think the Democrats would have paid for his 2% of the vote? What's a presidency worth? In an economics forum we all know that's the value of the marginal vote. (I wish it was mine!)

"... parsing Jim's statement is amusing. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Republicans did not treat Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes with respect? Please. Of course they did. They respectfully ignored them as being irrelevant ..."

Parsing achilles' statement is amusing. We see that treating a person "with respect" means treating a person as an "extremist with no base" who is "ignored as being irrelevant". Well, I guess we use dictionaries with different definitions of "respect". ;-)

But, hey, I'm on your side! The Democrats *should* ignore him as an opportunist demagogue. Let's see if they can do it. It's just that at every level of Al's career so far, if there's been one thing he's been very very good at, it's been not being ignored.

Though maybe he'll have his own experience with the Peter Principle here. We can hope. Good luck. It will be fun for some of us to watch.

"NY politics are so different from the rest of the country...."

Is Democratic politics in NY really so different from Democratic politics in the rest of the country -- Philly, LA, St. Louis ... -- as people here claim? I hope so for the Democrats' sake. We shall see.

Given New York's long history as a de facto one-party state, with the "real election" being the Democratic primary, many voters are registered Democrats regardless of their political bias.

This raises the strong possibility of "strategic voting", where "conservative" folks wanting to hurt the Democrats will vote FOR Sharpton in a presidential primary to boost his pernicious influence.

Polling high for Sharpton means polling enough to be nationally influential. In 6 months let's see if he has that buzz going.

The Sharpton to Nader comparisons are way too premature. If Sharpton was running for president and polling 2% nationally (as his own party candidate?) then the Democrats will be in deep trouble but that's a pretty remote possibility.

Mutual amusement aside, my point consistently has been that Democrats should treat Sharpton with the same respect as Republicans in 2000 treated Keyes and Bauer, i.e. treat them as being irrelevant. For people of that caliber, just ignoring their existence is about as much respect as I can muster. You may feel differently.

The bottom line here is whether Sharpton is anything more than a man with a core local support that makes him influential in city politics. New Yorkers are convinced that Sharpton will be more influential nationally but until such time that I hear about papers and TV news stations in South Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, or evel Philadelphia, Los Angeles or Chicago buzz with excitement about Al Sharpton the way those NY tabloids do, he will remain a fringe figure and should be treated as one, in my opinion.

Well, Bucky, that doesn't say much for the ethics of those "conservative" folks if they decide to raise this despicable man to more prominence for the sole purpose of scoring cheap political points.

But that's good to confirm for my side that a high vote total for Sharpton in NY will not be because the Democrats had no morals but because the Republicans had none.

No wonder Will Allen refuses to call himself a Conservative.

> If Sharpton was running for president and polling 2% nationally

That's actually in line with polls I've seen. If I spot one, I'll post it here.

>a high vote total for Sharpton in NY will not be because the Democrats had no morals but because the Republicans had none.

The registered *Democrat* conservatives here couldn't be more than a couple of thousand voters out of the millions in the electorate. I just mentioned the strategic voting aspect because it is of interest to economists, and to inform people that we do NOT have crossover voting across party lines in our primaries here, but could see similar effects.

Bucky, Sharpton is running for the Democratic nomination in a maze of 9 candidates and MAYBE polling 2%, not running for president and polling 2% with an established Democratic candidate in the field. There's a world of difference in the two scenarios. Comparing Sharpton to Nader at this stage is silly, but hey that's just my opinion.

"The registered *Democrat* conservatives here couldn't be more than a couple of thousand voters out of the millions in the electorate."

Well I guess their pretty irrelevant from a strategic perspective then, contrary to your first post.

"Mutual amusement aside, my point consistently has been that Democrats should treat Sharpton with the same respect as Republicans in 2000 treated Keyes and Bauer, i.e. treat them as being irrelevant."

So "treat with respect" for you means "politely disregard", while for me it means "take seriously."

But remember I wasn't talking about Sharpton per se but about the Democratic racial entitlement politics which means the worst -- from inept to demagogic -- black candidates have to be *taken seriously* by white Democratic candidates no matter what, here in NYS. Mark Green would have been very happy to politely ignore Sharpton, and look what happen to him. But let's drop Sharpton out of the picture for the moment.

Let's look at Andrew Cuomo, son of the former governor and member of the Cabinet of Bill Clinton, who ran for the gubernatorial nomination against Carl McCall, a political hack who was truly the most inept candidate for statewide office here in a generation. Yet Cuomo was forced to drop out of the race entirely because he feared that if he criticized McCall it would destroy his, Cuomo's, political career as a Democrat.

Cuomo started out 16 points up. After dropping out, here's what he said in the NY Times:

"I believe in my heart that if I did a negative ad I would have won. I could argue it's not even negative. Why is it negative to say Carl McCall says he's going to fix the Board of Education, but when he was the head of the Board of Education, scores went down? They say that's a personally derogatory ad and that would create racial problems...

"How could I go against Carl McCall? How could you do that? Don't you like black people? Aren't you a progressive? Aren't you a liberal? You young, arrogant s.o.b."

Note, that's not a conservative talking about Democrats, that's a Democratic candidate who experienced it talking about Democrats.

Now, that particular sort of "respect" that Cuomo and Green have had to pay is pretty far from the "respect" that the Republicans have given to Keyes and Bauer -- unless you really want to say that those other Republicans have had the choice of either withdrawing from their campaigns or destroying their careers when it came to saying anything critical about Keyes and Bauer.

It's racial entitlement politics, it's noxious, and it has kept the Democrats from winning either a governors or NYC mayoral election for more than a decade in spite of the state being 3-2 Democratic and the City being something like 10-1 Democratic.

How true of the national Democratic party is it? I don't know. For their sake, I hope not very. Let's see who the first Democratic candidate is who has the nerve to directly criticize Al for wearing a wire to spy on this friends, for the Tawana Brawley hoax, or any of his other little foibles. I'm not holding my breath until one does. But if one does I'll vote for him!

"Mutual amusement aside, my point consistently has been that Democrats should treat Sharpton with the same respect as Republicans in 2000 treated Keyes and Bauer, i.e. treat them as being irrelevant."

So "treat with respect" for you means "politely disregard", while for me it means "take seriously."

But remember I wasn't talking about Sharpton per se but about the Democratic racial entitlement politics which means the worst -- from inept to demagogic -- black candidates have to be *taken seriously* by white Democratic candidates no matter what, here in NYS. Mark Green would have been very happy to politely ignore Sharpton, and look what happen to him. But let's drop Sharpton out of the picture for the moment.

Let's look at Andrew Cuomo, son of the former governor and member of the Cabinet of Bill Clinton, who ran for the gubernatorial nomination against Carl McCall, a political hack who was truly the most inept candidate for statewide office here in a generation. Yet Cuomo was forced to drop out of the race entirely because he feared that if he criticized McCall it would destroy his, Cuomo's, political career as a Democrat.

Cuomo started out 16 points up. After dropping out, here's what he said in the NY Times:

"I believe in my heart that if I did a negative ad I would have won. I could argue it's not even negative. Why is it negative to say Carl McCall says he's going to fix the Board of Education, but when he was the head of the Board of Education, scores went down? They say that's a personally derogatory ad and that would create racial problems...

"How could I go against Carl McCall? How could you do that? Don't you like black people? Aren't you a progressive? Aren't you a liberal? You young, arrogant s.o.b."

Note, that's not a conservative talking about Democrats, that's a Democratic candidate who experienced it talking about Democrats.

Now, that particular sort of "respect" that Cuomo and Green have had to pay is pretty far from the "respect" that the Republicans have given to Keyes and Bauer -- unless you really want to say that those other Republicans have had the choice of either withdrawing from their campaigns or destroying their careers when it came to saying anything critical about Keyes and Bauer.

It's racial entitlement politics, it's noxious, and it has kept the Democrats from winning either a governors or NYC mayoral election for more than a decade in spite of the state being 3-2 Democratic and the City being something like 10-1 Democratic.

How true of the national Democratic party is it? I don't know. For their sake, I hope not very. Let's see who the first Democratic candidate is who has the nerve to directly criticize Al for wearing a wire to spy on this friends, for the Tawana Brawley hoax, or any of his other little foibles. I'm not holding my breath until one does. But if one does I'll vote for him!

I am willing to stipulate that any and all tales of New York City political intrigue involving Al Sharpton are true. For the umpteenth time, let me say that NYC mayoral election stories can only shed limited light on the extent to which Sharpton will be a gadfly on the national level.

BTW, the Cuomos have not exactly been profiles in courage when it comes to running for higher office in the rough and tumble world of politics.

Also the comparison will be between how the Democratic front runners treat Sharpton and how Bush treated Keyes and Bauer. How much Andrew Cuomo had to kiss Al Sharpton's ass should be is gubernatorial election intrigue, not national political intrigue, as hard as it is for New Yorkers to sometimes separate the two.

Take a look at Al's numbers, everyone, and judge for yourselves:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

> irrelevant from a strategic perspective

"Strategic voting" is a technical term in game theory, not related to the absolute size of the vote. Sorry for the confusion.

"How much Andrew Cuomo had to kiss Al Sharpton's ass should be is gubernatorial election intrigue, not national political intrigue, as hard as it is for New Yorkers to sometimes separate the two."

You aren't reading very well here. Cuomo's tale had *nothing* to do with Sharpton. And there was no intrigue in it at all -- it was about fundamental race politics in one of the largest states, and Democratic organizations, in the Union.

Some Democrats like to flatter themselves with the idea that their party is above race politics. Ha, ha. ;-)

"Some Democrats like to flatter themselves with the idea that their party is above race politics. Ha, ha. ;-)"

That's hysterical! And just as true as the corollary offered by a fellow Republican on this post

"The Republicans have adopted the correct line on racial discrimination. No discrimination and no reverse discrimination"

"Take a look at Al's numbers, everyone, and judge for yourselves"

So the two most recent polls have Al tied or ahead of Edwards (who seems to be imploding -- now I hear his seat in the Senate is at risk), and way ahead of Dean, who is nowhere.

Who the heck were these people saying Dean was a serious candidate, anyway, and what got into them?

Dang. I take great pains not to double post here, but it's happened twice today. Apologies.

-- "Some Democrats like to flatter themselves with the idea that their party is above race politics. Ha, ha. ;-)" --

"That's hysterical! And just as true as the corollary offered by a fellow Republican on this post.."

I'm not a Republican, friend. ;-)
And we won't be friends any more if you repeat that dastardly charge.

BTW, your answer was ambiguous, I can't tell if you were agreeing with the levity or saying you are one of those who thinks the Democrats *are* above race politics.

If the latter, that *would* be amusing. Read Andrew C's NYT comments again about NOT Sharpton but the state party. Then send him an e-mail to straighten him out. I'm sure he'll appreciate it!

If not ... never mind. ;-)

Ah, another non-Republican! Well one is allowed to self-identify in politics so who am I to play pin the label on the elephant, donkey, Naderite (jackass?) or libertarian (insert name of your favorite rare endabgered species here). But just to avoid incurring your wrath, I'll just call you an anti-Democrat from now on ;)

And in response to your question I certainly don't believe any party is above race politics. The only difference I see is that race politics in the Democratic party mostly comes from cranky unelected preacher/kingmaker types whereas from the Republicans it comes from the Senate majority leader types.

Prediction:

The Democrats nominate Howard Dean for President in '04. Dean carries Vermont and Bush carries the other 49 states.

The Democratic Party disappears as a force in national politics.

Alternative prediction: the Democrats nominate Joe Lieberman for president and Harold Ford for vice president. They capture the center and win the White House.

And now, problems for Joe Lieberman with black Democrats:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030228-82870376.htm

Very entertaining discussion. Thanks. At the very least, Sharpton could make things entertaining enough that the public might actually watch some of the Dem primary debates.