CT-SEN: Sharpton Says Lieberman Tactic "Borders On Racism"
I just got off the phone with Rev. Al Sharpton, and in an interview he blasted the Joe Lieberman campaign as "ugly," saying one of its tactics "borders on racism." Sharpton was referring to a comment made by Lieberman spokesperson Tammy Sun in today's Daily News, where she described Sharpton as "one of Ned Lamont's closest advisers." Sharpton claims that characterization is false. "I’ve given more advice to Joe Lieberman than I've given to Ned Lamont," Sharpton told Election Central, referring to his 2000 endorsement of the Gore-Lieberman ticket. More after the jump.
A quick recap. Last week, Lieberman was at a private fundraiser in Manhattan. According to the New York Times, Lieberman described an appearance by Sharpton on stage with Lamont after his primary victory in August as a "remarkable moment," and pointed to it to question Lamont's commitment to Israel.
Yesterday, Sharpton sent a letter to Lieberman, hammering him for the comment. Sharpton accused Lieberman of "flagrant race baiting" and said he was undermining black-jewish relations. In response, Lieberman spokesperson Sun said the following:
Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun dismissed the letter as "a baseless, extreme and divisive attack from one of Ned Lamont's closest advisers."
Reached by phone, Sharpton erupted. He said that asserting that he was a close Lamont adviser was false and amounted to guilt-by-association race-bating.
"Not only is that not true, but it shows a very ugly side of Joe Lieberman and his campaign," Sharpton said. "Was I [Lieberman's] adviser when I endorsed him for Vice President? I’ve given more advice to Joe Lieberman than I've given to Ned Lamont."
Sharpton also indulged in a bit of punditry, offering an explanation of the Lieberman camp's tactic. "They're trying to play to very conservative people, `Oh, [Lamont's] with the liberals, Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson,'" Sharpton said. "But they also want to drive a wedge between us and Lamont so black [voters] say, `Lamont's abandoning blacks.'"
Sharpton concluded: "It definitely borders on racism and I think it's beneath Joe Lieberman. It's so close to the border that he needs a passport. I might add that the only one who's brought up race in this campaign is them."
I agree with everything Sharpton says except that it is beneath Joe Lieberman. Almost nothing is beneath Joe Lieberman.
It is frightening to me that the two politicians, candidates for the Senate no less, that have played race games in this election year are both still leading in the polls.
global citizen
October 10, 2006 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sharpton has shown exceptional political growth in recent years, as noted by his recognition of the effect he could have on some voters if he is identified as a "close" Lamont adviser.
One response from the Lamont campaign could be to show a photograph of Al and Joementum when Sharpton visited Joe's DC concerning a bill both were supporting on March 5,2002.
The photo appears at:
www.gwu.edu/.../2004/sharpton/sharp030502.html
I'm sure that there are others.
October 10, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is a self-serving schlemiel who has let his pride come between him and good sense. He should have bowed out gracefully when Lamont took the Democratic primary. But instead he has chosen to throw Democrats under the bus. Joe's presence in the race damages the Democratic party as a whole, for not only will he take votes away from Lamont, he will also--if he wins--sit in the Senate as an Independent instead of a Democrat. This makes things more difficult for Democrats fiercely fighting to take back the Senate.
October 10, 2006 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this a variant of a Groucho Marx joke? Sharpton is saying, "It's racist to associate Lamont with me, because my reputation is so bad it's a smear to connect me to him." If that's what Sharpton really believes, he should withdraw from politics and from public life.
October 10, 2006 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other thing. I can't let this Sharpton comment pass unanswered:
"I might add that the only one who's brought up race in this campaign is them."
That's, of course, false. The Lamont website constantly tries to make Lieberman out to be a racist by citing his prior calls that affirmative action should be "temporary" as racist. (Is anybody really suggesting that affirmative action should be permanent? Isn't the point of affirmative action that it is temporary restitution to create an equal playing field?) And, of course, Jane Hamsher's blackface posting was more than a little racial, wasn't it?
October 10, 2006 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a Conn voter and they in the end will decide who goes to the Senate. I did find it interesting regarding Lieberman and Sharpton that Lamont said this according to an article in the Jewish Ledger on 09/27 when responding to a question
Q: Along the same lines, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton - who have had a rather contentious relationship with the Jewish community over the years - campaigned for you very prominently during the primary. What would you say to those who question your relationship with the Jewish community because of this?
A: First, I wouldn't say that there is anyone who is really a prominent part of my campaign. Me talking to voters is the most prominent part of the campaign.
Joe Lieberman contacted Reverend Sharpton to come up and campaign for him and Rev. Sharpton contacted someone in our campaign and said, "I understand that there are a lot of accusations about you and I'd like to stand up and counter them and go to some of these black churches and turn out the vote." We have a broad group of folks supporting us. Do I agree with them on everything? No. Do I agree with them on most things? Not necessarily. But at the end of the day I want to have a breadth of support. I want to show the black community that we're here reaching out to them. That I'm someone who understands the importance of education, the importance of getting ahead, the importance of good paying jobs. We had Rev. Sharpton come in and go to the pulpit and say, "Ned Lamont is a man who is good at heart and not a racist, as some people have tried to imply, and I'm standing by him."
I'm not familiar with the Ledger or it's politics, but it might be of interest if Sharpton was actually contacted by Lieberman to campign for him. If true , it might change some perceptions.
October 10, 2006 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mind trying that link again? My browser's unhappy with the /.../ part.
October 10, 2006 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amy Sue's famous restaurant in New York City offers the Al Sharpton breakfast consisting of waffles and fried chicken.
What borough of New York City would you guess the restaurant is located in?
I would put a hefty wager on you getting the right answer.
Do you really believe Al Sharpton is so dimwitted that he isn't capable of recognizing the - umm, ahh - degree of esteem in which he is held by the general population?
Joe Lieberman, like all racists, uses African-Americans for his own purposes when it suits him and discards them like a used handkerchief when it does not.
You have documented proof in front of you.
BTW I have no more fondness for some of the actions of Al sharpton than I have of the Al Sharpton breakfast. But I do have a fondness for Amy Sue's.
Best, Terry
October 10, 2006 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mind trying that link again?
If you have the google search engine you can type in lieberman+sharpton and select "images" rather than "web"
a black and white photo of joe and al in DC should be one of the first results
October 10, 2006 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
All Lieberman was doing was saying that Lamont was surrounding himself with people that have historically and/or currently been hostile to Israel. (Sharpton has met with Arafat in the middle of the second intifada, after all.) This statement was made to a group of about two dozen supporters. Not exactly equivalent to a Willie Horton ad, is it?
Sharpton then ran with it and issued a public statement accusing Lieberman of being a closet racist. Apparently any criticism of, or even reference to, Sharpton is racist. It's clear that he's just trying to throw his own racebaiting hail mary as Lamont falls behind.
Even worse, Sharpton says that Lieberman is setting back African-American/Jewish relations by pointing out Sharpton's questionable record on Israel. Well, first, isn't it a bit racist to think that Lieberman, simply because he is Jewish, is setting back relations between two whole communities simply by what he says at a private fundraiser. In any case, I would think that Sharpton did worse damage by meeting with Arafat and his other misadventures over the years.
Finally, Greg, I have to say that your Lieberman-Lamont coverage, which has long been unbalanced, has gone downright unhinged lately. Do you have any semblance of objectivity or basis in the facts?
October 10, 2006 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not true, but it's not very far off. Lieberman contacted Sharpton and asked that he not campaign one way or the other in CT. He did not ask for his support, as Lamont says.
October 10, 2006 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why did he do that?
Were there other Lamont supporters that Joe Lieberman contacted and asked that they not campaign for Lamont?
Wasn't Al Sharpton a former supporter of Joe Lieberman? Isn't that why Lieberman felt he could ask Al Sharpton not to campaign for Lamont?
And now Joe Lieberman smears Lamont because of the support of Al Sharpton.
What adjective would you use to describe Joe Lieberman's actions?
Best, Terry
October 10, 2006 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary, before the primary it was Lieberman's campaign that left race-baiting flyers in black neigborhoods and at black churches. Jane's controversial use of Lieberman in blackface was an attempt to highlight this despicable campaign tactic.
The first, second and third volleys were Lieberman's. This is what was said after the primary, from the New York Times, Aug.16, 2006:
And Lieberman seems dead set on repeating this and adding other black politicians to the list. From the New York Times last week:
As for affirmative action, since when did being for affirmative action when your opponent wants to sunset it become an implication of your opponent's racism? Here is what Lamont's website says on affirmative action. He doesn't even MENTION Lieberman.
Joe has flip-flopped so many times on affirmative action, one can hardly believe where he stands now.
October 10, 2006 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"(Sharpton has met with Arafat in the middle of the second intifada, after all.)"
Oh, so we are to decide what's in a man's heart by whom he meets with? Need I remind you of this:
That played really well with the Jewish community at the time.
Moreover, he has included Jessie Jackson and Maxine Waters in his "devisive" comments. Tell me, when did Joe come to the conclusion that all these black leaders are devisive and anti-Israel as he implies?
And last, but not least, I can't help but notice your deliberate attempt to characterize his remarks as being among a small group of supporters, a "private" function, and yet the entire affair was reported by the New York Times. Clearly, he knew his remarks were to be completely public and effective in some degree as to promote himself. So what do you think his goal is if not to create a schism between these black leaders and his Jewish supporters?
October 10, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think, as terryhallinan and SharonW have pointed out, Lieberman has used Sharpton when it was convienient. Isn't that hypocritical?
I don't list Sharpton as my first voting choice , but it does seem that he has become a bit more politically astute in recent years (I accept this may just be a superficial change). I have seen him punch back at wingnuts on several programs in a style that many Democrats could emulate.
I am curious about how Lieberman survives in a state that is mostly against the war. He continues to support an Iraqi war that has rapidly degenerated into a civil war, while watching as Afghanistan is producing more poppy crops than military and political results. The Taliban is rearing it's head again. We have a foreign policy that is a joke. Congress is providing NO oversight of the Executive branch.
I don't see Lieberman being in the forefront (or background) on changing policy in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even GOP Senator Warner has misgivings after returning from Iraq. Lieberman will rubber stamp Bush's approach to North Korea, whatever it is. Finally, Lieberman will not call for stronger (or any) oversight of the Executive.
What does Lieberman have going for him that I as a non-CT citizen can't find?
October 10, 2006 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twofacedbackstabbinghypocrite?
This helps explain why Joe wanted to say Al was not a friend of Israel, since he is not backing the Iraq war ..which was fine ...as long as he was supporting Lieberman. Once he was not in Joe's corner...he becomes anti-Israel? Riiiight.....so much for Jewish/black relationships...truth is this little dynamic underscores the true state of that alliance as being nothing more than a case of 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine'...but the reality is that they (Joe&AL) each may have permanent interests which align but they are certainly, not ever, permanent allies. A stance that would unequivocally benefit America's ME foreign policy.
October 11, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect this is due to the Lamont campaign failing to drive home what the real differences and issues are. More importantly he is not emphasizing how he differs from Joe with regard to ME foreign policy. The polling subsequent to the primary showed that folks who voted for Lamont voted against Bush policies and Joe Lieberman. It was their dislike of Bush's policies that Lieberman supported that won Lamont the primary. In the statewide race, he has only held onto those voters and been unable to capitalize on the conservative republican vote as those voters are not necessarily anti-Bush and would agree with Liebermans voting record when it comes to ME foreign policy.
To me, Lamont could grab those voters by emphasizing the national debt and the most recent GOP scandal where they allowed deviant adult sexual desires to take precedent over the welfare of children, such that children are not safe from sexual predators when the GOP is the party in power. The GOP looks out for the party and not the safety of children. That would hit home with parents, particularly wealthy parents, who are far more likely to have their children become pages....as well as the universe of all parents who hate the cover up.
At least this seems to be how other Democratics are gaining in the polls vs. their opponents who have staunchly backed Bush policies.
I think Lamont is simply not running an effective campaign.
After all, he could even attack Lieberman as a vote for him means CT wants 'more of the same and staying the course'....or have you had enough?
Consider this, why listen to Lieberman when everything he says like Bush represents failure and more failure, failure of the Congress to exercise oversight, failure in Iraq and failure when it comes to fiscal management...nothing but a track record of the same...and one thing is for sure...nothing is a better predictator of furture success than the past pattern of behavior and in this case we see nothing but failure after failure after failure.
GOP money and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Who both have told their listeners to vote for Lieberman. The conservatives are carrying Lieberman. His voting record is well known. Lamont is an unknown.
October 11, 2006 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink