Al Sharpton and Kucinich Betray the "Kerry Theme" & Help the Bush Campaign in Effect

lol ......... it's not my party, but the speech was funny and good.......even though I didn't agree with most of it.

 

Re: Al Sharpton and Kucinich Betray the "Kerry Theme" & Help the Bush Campaign in Eff

Al Sharpton cannot be controlled by mere rules.

 

Re: Al Sharpton and Kucinich Betray the "Kerry Theme" & Help the Bush Campaign in Eff

1. How has the GOP earned it? There are no black Republican members of Congress. Bush has contiunued the Southern strategy employed by Nixon, Reagan and Poppy.
2, Bush has practiced class warfare - tax cuts for rich, underfunding social programs that often benefit blacks: schools, housing, job training, vet benefits...
3. What has Bush done on crime? Refused to extend the assault weapons ban. Cut federal support for police. Would he consider changing federal sentencing laws?
4. Probably not. That's a reason?
5. A dumb question, even for Bush. It makes no sense.

And actually, small businesses have suffered under Bush: reduced access to SBA loans and grants, higher health costs...

 

Democrats earn the votes of all minority groups MUCH more than Republicans do. Well, that is all except the minority groups who want to add a bunch of frivilous amendments to the Constitution.

You know, I have no idea what this "class warfare" mantra the Republicans keep talking about even means. I guess they decided to refdefine the word "warfare" at the same time they tried to redefine the word "patriotism." They haven't succeeded in doing either.

The Republican solution - "Just say no." Brought to you by the same folks who gave the inner city "trickle down economics," and the ever popular "no upper middle-class white child left behind."

It is when the other party goes out of their way to disenfranchise the African-American community.

Forced to compete? The Republicans had their chance to win the minority vote. They blew it. There is no competition because the Republicans quit trying.

Boosting small businesses means what, exactly? Is Bush going to ensure that minority owned small businesses have a chance to compete?

Demanding high standards in the nation's public schools means what, exactly? Is Bush going to stop screaming about school vouchers to get kids out of bad schools rather than trying to fix the problems that already exist in those schools?

And defending the institutions of marriage and family means what, exactly? That if a single mother can't make ends meet with one or two jobs, she'll have to three or four, and will be home with her kids 68 hours every week because she has to work the other 100? Does it mean that if two people of the same gender want to raise a child that they won't be able to do so because some people think that it's wrong?

Bush can't answer legitimate questions. Apparently he can't ask legitimate questions either.

 

Yes, amazingly, hatred of Bush will come into play in this election

 

You can't stop Al Sharpton, you can only hope to contain him.

 

Was this some sort of attempt at being farcical?

Here's what Sharpton actually said... prompting huge applause. No mention of "white devil", "White America Republicans" or "slave traders"

Mr. President, as I close, Mr. President, I heard you say Friday that you had questions for voters, particularly African- American voters. And you asked the question: Did the Democratic Party take us for granted? Well, I have raised questions. But let me answer your question.

You said the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give 40 acres and a mule.

That's where the argument, to this day, of reparations starts. We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres.

Mr. President, you said would we have more leverage if both parties got our votes, but we didn't come this far playing political games. It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the right to organize under Democrats.

Mr. President, the reason we are fighting so hard, the reason we took Florida so seriously, is our right to vote wasn't gained because of our age. Our vote was soaked in the blood of martyrs, soaked in the blood of good men (inaudible) soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham. This vote is sacred to us.

This vote can't be bargained away.

This vote can't be given away.

Mr. President, in all due respect, Mr. President, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...8/text_of_al_sharptons_convention_speech?pg=4

A damn good bit of political speaking if you ask me. Sure, he circumvented the party line by showing the immense anger that's festering in America's thinking half, but it was eloquently and forcefully done. The anger has to come out from some at this convention and in this election. Funny how you think that this will hurt Kerry, but the softly-softly approach from Edwards/Kerry is being seen by some critics as being too milquetoast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23323-2004Jul29.html

In his speech last night accepting the nomination for vice president on the Democratic ticket, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina tried to get the crowd in Boston chanting along with him, especially on the phrase "Hope is on the way." But the bland and platitudinous nature of the speech only served to support the widely held view that political conventions have become anachronisms.

And the Democrats' namby-pamby decision to go positive -- not to attack the arguably very, very vulnerable administration of George W. Bush -- has put a pall of niceness over the proceedings that, try as they might, cranky-minded TV commentators haven't done much to dispel.

 

I got a chuckle out of the speech. I am guessing that very few swing voters saw his speech, but if they did, I assume they are probably smart enough to know that Al Sharpton most likely won't be Secretary of State in a Kerry administration.

If anything, I think he served as something of a pressure release for the delegates. The speech -- in the convention hall -- was needed.

Personally, I would like to see the democrats take the gloves off a little more. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz et al. should be called out by name.

Kerry needs to distinguish his potential policies from Bush -- not just in Iraq, but in future potential conflicts. To do that, you have got to name names and expose the mistakes that have been made.

 

I think that Rev. Al hit the peg squarely on the head by saying what he wants to say. This convention has been the longest, most boring advertisement I have ever seen. Outside of Pres. Clinton and State Sen. Obama's skillful oratory, there has been very little reason to tune in.

Rev. Al didn't betray the Kerry theme. He EXPOSED IT. The Kerry theme, which was the theme of the speeches by Clinton, Obama, Carter, Sharpton and Edwards is that the State will watch out for you. You need a guy in the White House that cares about you.

Edwards' speech's refrain was "Hope is on the way." In other words, place your faith, not your reason, in Kerry-Edwards. Rely on "hope". Basically, the electorate has no brains and Kerry-Edwards will not appeal to your intellect, Kerry-Edwards will appeal to your emotions.

Obama stated that he or Kerry-Edwards will find "jobs for the jobless and homes for the homeless." The inferred message again, is for americans to sit back and place their hopes and faith in Kerry-Edwards as they will deliver all this bounty.

At the end of Edwards' speech, what music was playing? A song from way back in 1976, Sir Duke. The main theme, "You can FEEL it all over." It's all about emotion. Which guy makes you feel good. It's kind of like a national hand job.

 

Sharpton did what he's supposed to do - rankle the GOP. He's the designated finger-wagger, challenging Bush directly while Kerry and Edwards take the high road. Everyone knows he's going to say whatever he wants to say, so let him do the dirty work. Bush deserves to have his nose rubbed in the shameful record of the past three years. I just wish Kerry and Edwards would be a little more confrontational in this regard.

 

Sharpton is very effective as the gadfly of the Democratic Party. He has a masterful way of articulating the frustration and anger of a lot of disenfranchised people. He has a unique way of getting to the emotional core of an issue. Having said that, I don't know why the media continues to give him a free pass regarding his past, i.e., the Tawana Brawley affair, and several other incidents. Many people were hurt as a result of his actions, and I've never heard him come close to acknowledging any responsibility for any of his actions.

Everyone should be given the opportunity to change and improve oneself, and Sharpton in many ways has remade himself into a much more thoughtful and effective leader. If I were grading him, the old Sharpton would get a D- or F. The new Sharpton could potentially get a B+, but his failure to come clean about his past leaves him with an incomplete grade.

 

Please. He's a walking, living commercial for George Bush.

 

Good thing he's not the one running, then.

 

According to theory, this paragraph should have collapsed in on itself, creating a singularity of bull****, sucking in not only MiamiAce but InTheNet, Silvio Dante's sockpuppets, and those Mexico fans who think the Olympic qualifier somehow means they now have scoreboard on us.

 

Why do you say that?

 

MiamiAce aka IntheNet aka RightWhigWhacko is sock puppet of the tools. Or is it the other way around? It would be grousing around, well like a grouse, no matter what Sharpton or JJ had to say.

 

This is comedy gold coming from a Bush supporter.

 

Attaboy! That's a well thought out response.

 

So, just where are those WMDs again?

 

I appreciate the time and effort in your responses (8 words and then 7 words). You're so succinct.

You didn't want to put forth any effort to comment on the vapid state of the convention. Well, from your responses, you seem to know so much about me.

You've proceeded to label me as a Bush supporter. How do you know?

Your next statement was in regard to WMD's?

Do you often go off from tangential point to tangential point? Shall we go through a list of euphemisms. Will that enlighten anyone?

Rumsfeld
Halliburton
WMD's
Abu Ghraib
Kim Yung-Il
Sandy Berger
Enron
Travelgate
Vince Foster
Neo-con
Lynnde England
Colin Powell
Teresa

Sounds like one long rorschach test to me.

 

If Al Sharpton can speak at the Democratic convention, can Steven Pagones speak at the Republican convention?

 

Who?

 

I've read my Strunk and White. I prefer clear and concise. But if you want a longer response, NYfutbolfan, I'll be happy to oblige you.

We've got American troops dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush Administration has consistently demonstrated that it has absolutely no clue as to what to do in those countries. In the meantime, our military is overextended, soldier morale is down, recruiting is down and we're faced with the virtual certainty of a draft next year if Bush is re-elected. The enormous amount of support and goodwill the world sent our way in response to 9/11 has been squandered, absolutely squandered, by this administration.

At home, our economic "recovery" is looking more and more like a dead cat bounce for anyone to be comfortable with, and even that anemic growth is threatened by record deficits (just four years, BTW, after Bill Clinton left us with record surpluses), the possibility of a housing bubble bursting, ever-climbing oil prices and ever-climbing health-care costs.

In short, there are a lot of serious issues that need serious solutions. So what has the Republican Congress been working on lately? An amendment to ban gay marriage and now the flag-burning amendment is supposed to come up for a vote in the Senate.

And the Democrats are supposed to be the party of faith and emotion instead of reason? You must be joking.