I found via EURweb, this from a blog called The Mo’Kelly Report.

Here goes Snoop again only posting stuff he agrees with, yes I think Al Sharpton is a moron, but I wanted to post because this guys points out Al’s shortcomings in a slightly more eloquent and civil manner, something Snoop has a little problem with, LOL!   

The Rev. Al Sharpton is “threatening” to run again. Yes, “threatening” to run for President of the United States…again. According to Sharpton, if the Democratic candidates collectively have an agenda he feels he can endorse, then he’ll remain on the bench and not report to the scorer’s table so he can come in the game and post up Barack Obama.  Yes, if and only if the Democratic agenda meets Al Sharpton’s approval, there will be no sequel to the disaster of 2004. 

Yes, “threatening” is an apt description of Sharpton’s intentions.

Please don’t run Al.  Mo’Kelly begs of you, please don’t run.

We can only hope that this is an “idle” threat.  To be sure, Mo’Kelly is not against Al Sharpton RUNNING for president.  That’s not the problem.  Mo’Kelly is against AL SHARPTON running for president…that’s the problem.

Note the difference.

When Jesse Jackson ran for president in 1984, his success in the primaries forced Democrats to remind themselves of the viability of the African-American electorate.  In 2008, Al Sharpton only forces politicos to recite his questionable and sordid past, in all of its gory splendor.  The phrase “but you pleaded guilty to tax evasion” is an accurate and formidable retort in any presidential debate.

(Al Sharpton faces off against Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a debate, Jim Lehrer moderates.)

Jim Lehrer:  “Good evening candidates…America is ready to hear from you.”

Hillary Clinton: “America needs something better than a vast right-wing conspiracy.  America needs the new, improved and moderate Hillary Clinton.  And it takes a village of voters like you and me to elect her.”

Barack Obama: “America needs someone who can understand her from both the Black and White perspective.  Someone, who has the audacity of hope.”

Al Sharpton: “America simply deserves honesty.  America deserves…Al Sharpton.”

Jim Lehrer: “But Mr. Sharpton, didn’t you plead guilty to tax evasion and weren’t you successfully sued for your part in the Tawana Brawley case/hoax?”

Al Sharpton: “Well, what had happened was…”

Hillary Clinton: “Didn’t you say you would stop using the hot comb if/when James Brown died?  Don’t get me wrong, I love your hair…isn’t that Ultra Sheen?”

Al Sharpton: “Like I was saying…what had happened was…”

You can call Mo’Kelly crass and cynical; but you won’t be calling him wrong.  Nothing negates a well-reasoned debate about the supposed dishonesty of the Republican Party or the alleged inferiority of fellow Democratic candidates quicker than words like “Tawana Brawley” or “tax evasion.”

Not to mention other words like “FBI undercover sting with Sharpton caught on tape in drug negotiations.”  Those too are pretty powerful words.

And his opposition would be well within their right to use any and all of these subtle reminders of his past.  They are accurate and solid comebacks.

If such embarrassments weren’t enough to discourage Sharpton in 2004, one would hope his most recent campaign financial “issues” would have been reason enough to leave well enough alone this time around.

In December of 2005, Sharpton agreed to pay back $100,000 in public funds he received for his failed bid in 2004, after the disclosure that he had exceeded federal limits on personal expenditures for his campaign.  Federal election law stipulates that a candidate can only donate $50,000 of personal funds to one’s own campaign, to which the government can match.  Again, Sharpton ended up on the wrong side of “right.”  If he can’t manage his own campaign, something tells me he is ill-equipped to manage the country. 

There’s nothing dishonorable about Sharpton continuing to lob his scathing salvos of rhetoric from the peanut gallery and leaving public policy to the trained professionals.  Sharpton doesn’t necessarily need a presidential campaign to positively affect change.

Intellectually, Mo’Kelly understands why Sharpton would hazard a candidacy. Ostensibly, he could be a voice of the unheard and a light illuminating the overlooked.

Ostensibly, that is…

Yet when Sharpton neither adequately represents the multitude of African-Americans nor wields the political clout to leverage against Washington…it’s an exercise in futility which likely obfuscates the issues that truly matter.  In fact, Mo’Kelly would argue that it’s both counterintuitive and counterproductive to advancing the supposed “African-American” agenda.  As long as Sharpton can be easily “dismissed” through highlighting his checkered past, then the issues he may attempt to raise are equally easy to dismiss, regardless of their legitimacy.  In presidential campaigns, the messenger is as important as the message.  Arguably, a message is only as meaningful as the mouth from which it originates. 

Nobody would debate whether child sexual predators are a menace to society. At the same time, nobody would debate whether Michael Jackson is an inappropriate messenger to disseminate said message.

Clearly Michael isn’t, irrespective of the result of his previous court cases.  Accordingly, Sharpton would be the wrong “messenger” to send certain messages forth, regardless of their importance.  There is a strong and valid parallel here and Mo’Kelly isn’t talking about the Lustra Silk connection either.

If the Rev. Al Sharpton is of the opinion that the Democratic agenda must be credible, then it sure would be nice if he started with the man in the mirror…no Michael Jackson pun intended.

Spokesman - Dark & Lovely No-Lye Relaxer
Tax Evasion
Campaign finance fraud/mismanagement
Tawana Brawley
Star of FBI undercover drug sting
Brooklyn college dropout

Sorry, but Mo’Kelly doesn’t want the Rev. Al speaking on his behalf.  If that’s “Black America’s” best option, then things are worse than ever before.

Make no mistake; Al Sharpton is a brilliant and exceptionally astute orator.  Intellectually, he is on point and in the tradition of civil rights leaders originating from the Black church, minus the drug sting and tax evasion, that is.

…And Tawana Brawley.

…And campaign misappropriation.

His civil rights record speaks for itself.  And uh…his “other” record speaks for itself too.  He is a liability for reasons all his own; mistakes/misappropriations of his own doing.

Al Sharpton may be well-intentioned in a general sense but in terms of a presidential campaign, he is not.

Al Sharpton running for president is not a means to an end as he would likely argue; it’s an end destination of self-aggrandizement.  If Sharpton is truly of the mind to best serve the interests of African-Americans, then he should humbly step aside and not convolute the issue.  We as African-Americans would be more than slightly foolish to believe that the Rev. Al Sharpton is our best foot forward.

The goal of Al Sharpton should be serving the interests of the multitude of African-Americans, not merely appeasing the self-serving interests of one African-American.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007 at 1:00 pm and is filed under Negro Watch, Liberal Education.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.