Is the NYT position on removing Sharpton racist?

[mikehiggins]

I know they have a great reputation as being "liberal" and all, but what kind of mind comes up with an idea like locking Sharpton out of the debates?

Even if you don't particularly like him, and I don't, he is still a spokesman for millions and millions of black Americans. Denying him a voice is akin to denying them a voice.

That's racism in my book, pure and simple.

I wish I subscribed to the NYT so I could cancel my subscription.

[girl gone mad]

1. They want to lock out Kucinich..

as well. Not sure that I would go so far as to call it racism, but it certainly is ignorance.

[robcon]

18. Saying he represents "millions and millions of black Americans"

is racist. He represents his supporters, no matter what color they are.

[ecstatic]

21. Sharpton brings up key issues that affect black voters

Issues that nobody else seems to bring up in the debates.

For instance, "internet voting--" The act itself is not racist, but when you have African Americans waiting in lines for sometimes over 3 hours combined with the fact of an obvious "digital divide" the result is a huge disparity.

[mikehiggins]

25. Not in the world we like to call "real", rob. It isn't just lipservice to

say racism is endemic in our society. It is an absolute reality for millions and millions of Americans.

The Democratic Party has taken the black vote for granted for a long, long time and Sharpton puts the party on notice that there is a price that is coming due. Locking him out is little more than an attempt to stifle that message, and that is racist as well.

Al has white supporters, and Latino and Native Americans as well. He is being excluded because he is black.

[H2O Man]

39. You are 100% right.

You have hit the nail on the head. great job!

[Tinoire]

70. Very clearly put

The trouble with Al is that he just won't forget how the government perverted that lie about 40 acres and the damn mule. I can live without those but will no longer tolerate not having fair representation in US politics.

[amandabeech]

42. With respect to Kucinich,

I think its called class warfare. Kucinich is scarier than Edwards because he wants us out of WTO/NAFTA and is not afraid to say so (he also mentioned the PNAC directly in the SC debate). I've been reading the NYT off and on for a long time, and they are reflexively for unadulterated free trade no matter what the cost to real people who are losing jobs that are never coming back. I have yet to get any indication from the Times as to what jobs will be automatically be created by the invisible hand of the market that won't then be transferred immediately to a low wage country. It's not like many timesmen/women will be forced out of their respective homes.

Rant over.

Amanda

[maryallen]

72. Both anti-war, too ...

Can't have the Dems talking about the war all across America. Some of the sheep might actually hear the message; figure out that we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place.

The "establishment" wants the debate to be limited to healthcare, education, taxes, poverty, not the "hot-button" issues of war and free trade. Too dangerous ... for those on "high."

[Tinoire]

69. I'll pay you $50 for you moniker!

Welcome to DU :toast: but damn- I want your moniker now!

Peace

[poskonig]

2. I'm not certain why it is racist.

Would it be racist to ask Keyes to drop out of the McCain-Bush debate?

Or is Alan Keyes a "spokesman for millions and millions of black Americans?"

:shrug:

[mikehiggins]

27. Is that how Keyes ran? As "a spokesman for millions and millions of black

Americans"? Or was it to show blacks how to be white and make it in the massa's world?

That is a specious comparison and I think you will see that if you give it a little more thought.

Nixon had a plan to end the war in VietNam and so did the democrats. The people bought Nixon's plan, not knowing it involved bombing Laos and Cambodia and killing hundreds of thousands more people.

Keyes, in that equation, would be Nixon.

Am I being clear?

[poskonig]

74. "make it in the massa's world?"

and people are calling the New York Times racist? :crazy:

[mikehiggins]

75. That's irony, Posk.

You do understand irony, don't you?

If not, then that's ironic.

[Dark Star]

3. There is a

similar thread about this pointing out that they want to remove Kucinich as well.

I believe this is about what these 2 men are saying, however, this is America and therefore I don't ever believe there isn't a tinge of racism if a black person is somehow involved.

You can still write an email to the editor. I myself already belong to a group that is protesting bias in NYT reporting.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. It's more that

he says things that are outside the elite-defined realm of acceptable discourse, just as Kucinich does.

If Colin Powell or Harold Ford or were running in this race, you can bet that there would be no calls for their removal from the debates. They follow the rules.

[RichM]

8. This is the real reason. (I was going to say it - but you beat me to it.)

[Fleshdancer]

4. Don't they also want Kucinich out of the debates too?

Is the NYT proposal insulting, ridiculous, and an insult to the concept of Democracy and freedom of speech? Yes. Is it racist? Probably not.

It's a scary day when American's "voices" (media) try to silent the voices of others.

[mikehiggins]

28. Kuchinich is expendable and irrelevent in the NYT view

Sharpton is a much more dangerous proposition.

Massa don' wan' no field hands gettin' too uppity, no he don'

[corporatewhore]

47. hes the only union card holder

[Lefta Dissenter]

5. and locking Kucinich out is

bias against elves? (ok, that was a joke, I actually like a lot of things about DK) I guess I didn't perceive the racism end of it, but I'm your basic white gal, so maybe I'm blind to a lot.

I totally disagree with and disrespect their position, as I posted on the other thread. I don't think it should be up to the media to DECIDE which candidates are viable and which are not. Just report the damned news and then shut up!

[mikehiggins]

29. Locking Dennis out is a side issue, camouflage n/t

[Iverson]

6. offensive but not racist

The full context includes also removing Kucinich, as others have pointed out. The consistency is not in race but instead in a media interlocutor trying to decide to remove the "left" voices.

You will note how the news media treat some candidates, denying them exposure or meaningful exposure and then acting as if the predictable results are some kind of naturalistic data.

:thumbsdown:

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Kucinich and Sharpton are the only "left voices" in the race?

They are the voice that are resonating the least with voters and caucus-goers.

[Iverson]

14. Those are two separate questions.

Also, your claim is arguable, since the fashion is not to vote for what one believes but instead to anticipate "electability."

If you think that lefty voices should not be heard, be straightforward about it.
If you think that Iowa and New Hampshire provide a valid sample of nationwide Democratic sentiment, say so.
In any case, please be clear.

[Freddie Stubbs]

81. "Lefty voices" were heard

And the voters have rejected them.

[Iverson]

84. a matter of noblesse oblige

So good of you to have tolerated polling that may have even exceeded a full percentage point of the electorate.

I think that that gave the rabble ample room to have succeeded by now if they were going to, don't you?

Heavens to betsy, let's quiet their noise without further ado and leave only the acceptable possibilities for the duration. Port or sherry?

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. They have demonstrated their lack of support among Democrats

Amateur hour is over. It is time to concentrate on the serious candidates.

[Iverson]

86. Let's explore that reasoning.

As was pointed out to you not long ago, your pronouncement of finality comes upon the tiniest percentage of the polity actually polling.

Well, if you are eager to eliminate the progressive candidates, then why not say that the whole thing is over right now? After all, everyone else could have been a clear front runner by now too, but isn't.

I'm leaving off the rather obvious point that a candidate may wish to have an effect while still not getting the nomination. Your calling for their exclusion certainly prevents that.

So do we play by your rules and announce a coronation without that messy opportunity to choose losers who haven't won yet? Hmmmm?

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. Yes, but the voting class is not "left," if anything it is more right

today than it was yesterday, and will be more so tomorrow.

The candidates who reflect that trend, re-evaluating their positions accordingly, and exercise the greatest skill and caution in phrasing comments critical to the policies of the current administration raise money and "resonate" with voters.

In your zeal to "beat the shrub," do not lose sight of what you are beating him at.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. I think it is overcautious. Since they also want to ban Kucinich, I don't

think that it can be called racist.

I think that they have some apprehension about giving national exposure to candidates whose positions stray a little bit farther from those of the status quo, and they are concerned that voters might feel tempted by the possibility of changes in long-standing policies.

In my opinion, these fears are unfounded. The voting class does not want change, unless it is a barely perceptible, or a clever new restatement of the status quo, and in fact, the challenge of the "leading" candidates is how to package even small cosmetic changes convincingly as "improvements" without giving the impression that they do not support the President during this time of a very different kind of war.

[mikehiggins]

30. Please see post 29 in this thread n/t

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. Well if it camouflage, it is being mighty widely used

and so much so that while I am well aware that racism is endemic in US culture, and evident in media coverage of Sharpton, and I regret to say, not infrequently seen on this board, and for all I know the writer of the editorial could be a racist, but advocating the ban of the only two candidates in a lineup of endless new and exciting names for the status quo, it is only reasonable to assume that at least for the purposes of the debates, it is not Sharpton's ethnicity that disturbs the Times, but the (in my opinion, unlikely) possibility that someone might listen to him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Sharpton has been in debate after debate,

but so far the voters have rejected his message.

[Mass_Liberal]

10. no its just stupid

They don't hate him because he's black. They hate him because he's unconvential. Thus, the NYT is being idiotic.

[lastknowngood]

11. not really the fringe candidates should have already

folded up their tents and selected a stronger candidate they can support. I like the diverse ideas but they have been little more than a distraction from our battle to defeat the shrub.

[Indiana Democrat]

12. Yeah...It's ALL about RACISM!!!

RACISTS RACISTS RACISTS!!

[jsw_81]

16. NO

It is not "racist" to exclude fringe candidates from the debates. Would you people quit playing the f-----g race card every five seconds? It's incredibly annoying. Get a credible black candidate in the race, like Governor Wilder or Secretary Powell, and I assure you that he (or she) will be included in every single debate. Sharpton on the other hand...

[Dark Star]

17. Secretary Powell

is credible?

With who? Clarence Thomas?

[mikehiggins]

20. Has Kerry commented on this as yet?

And has he issued an explanation of what his comment means or doesn't mean?

It isn't playing a race card to recognise an injustice.

I'm white, from NYC (now in Florida) and have disliked Al Sharpton since he first shilled for Al D'Amato years ago. I still think it is important for there to be a black voice at the table, and I think the Times is racist for suggesting otherwise.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it. No qualifications, no clarifications, no revisions: this is de facto racism and I'm agin it.

[jsw_81]

26. Whatever

Any reasonable person can see that this is NOT racism. There is nothing wrong with suggesting that fringe candidates be excluded from the debates at this point in the race.

[IndianaGreen]

41. If anyone is a "fringe" candidate, it is John Kerry

Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and for PATRIOT. Kerry voted for NCLB which among other things gives a blank check to military recruiters to prey on young children in order to imprint on their minds the idea that it is good to serve in an imperial army during endless wars to defend global capitalism.

[Tinoire]

55. a credible black candidate in the race like Secretary Powell?! BWAHAHA

Fortunately for us all, your opinion is not credible.

Exclude Kucinich & Sharpton indeed!

A credible black candidate in the race like Secretary Powell indeed!

:puke:

[Iverson]

57. you see what I mean ...

... about the discourse constantly drifting to the right. I don't think that the Powell bit was a joke; I bet it was sincere.

[Tinoire]

68. It was sincere unfortunately & yes... this is how we merge with the Right

I've watched that poster. Dislikes Bush for sure but that seems to be about it.

I am not at all keen about joining up with everyone who hates Bush. Bush is just a flea on the rabid dog- I want the entire damned dog gone.

Colin My Lai Powell. What a joke.


We are morphing with the right except on 2 issues: Gay rights & abortion. No other principle seems to matter anymore. I am fast feeling that the Democratic Party no longer represents me- there are TOO many other issues that I consider just as important and which I refuse to see sacrificed.

I hope no one says Alan Keyes is a liberal! As a Black woman, it incenses me that so many people seem to think that all Blacks are Liberals or Democrats. Doesn't ordinary, God-given intelligence tell you that many Blacks are just as greedy as Whites once they get their hands on a few dollars? It's greed & insensitivity towards our fellow man, not color.

We're people too! No such thing as a Black Liberal gene.


Thank God for people like you who don't need an explanation.

[mikehiggins]

19. The NYT isn't stupid. They cover by throwing Dennis to the wolves

Who is next on their list? Lieberman, of course.

Wealthy, well dressed Christian white men are okay, Lieberman is so-so, Dennis and Al are out.

A red-neck newspaper in the Florida panhandle could be expected to take a stance like that but the Newspaper Of Record? The Grey Lady of American Journalism? Give me a break.

Just because the Times doesn't fly the battle flag above its front door doesn't mean it isn't riddled with unspoken racism. I'd listen to the Village Voice if Nat Hentoff said what the Times did, but that would never happen.

There is only one black candidate running. He should be invited to the table as often as he wants to keep going, if only out of respect for the millions of blacks who see no one else likely to care about their concerns ten seconds after the polls close in November.

Al, for all of my dislike for the man as an individual, is reminded of his people's problems every time he looks in a mirror. And he brings a level of honesty to the proceedings that probably surprises him as much as it does me.

And I doubt there's anyone on this board more surprised at that than me.

[jsw_81]

31. Sharpton brings a "level of honesty" to the proceedings?!?

Are you for real?

[mikehiggins]

44. Ask Howard Dean about that. eom

[evil_orange_cat]

22. they must hate white people too

because they want Kucinich to step away also...

:eyes:

NYT racist because of their comments about Sharpton? that's absurd...

[mikehiggins]

45. I didn't say they were stupid. Kuchinich and, to a degree, Jo-mentum

are expendable to the establishment. Using them to cover for shutting Sharpton up costs nothing and serves to disguise what is going on.

[corporatewhore]

52. they hate working class union card holding whites like kucinich NYTimes is

racist and classist

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. In a sense it is racist and classist

The NY Times is the premiere metropolitan national advisor. The Washington Post is the beltway advisor, for decades the NY TImes is regarded more as the cultural advisor and has obliged this role even with covert CIA operations back as far as the 1950's and the puff pieces they wrote on behalf of the Congress for Cultural Freedom.

The point is to steer the conversation clear of issues framed other than by policy makers (and THEIR interpretation of the problem.

In that regard, it is racist and classist, since it lets an all white crowd frame the race issue and an inside political crowd frame the class issue.

[jsw_81]

33. Classist?

Sharpton is a millionaire.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Who he IS doesn't matter, the VIEWPOINT he represents isn't

the viewpoint of power brokers.

[jsw_81]

37. Well his "viewpoint" has won less than one percent of the vote

And he does NOT belong in the debates with serious candidates like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, and Clark. Kucinich doesn't belong in the debates either.

[mikehiggins]

48. his viewpoint has won less than one percent of the vote in two lily white

states. I don't think Sharpton has a big constituency in Utah either.

New York, California, Michigan, Florida, the Carolina's, etc., etc. and so forth.

If Sharpton scores less than one percent of the vote in those states, you might have a case.

I don tink so, bunky.

[Tinoire]

58. Please Mike Higgins. Please don't do this. Don't make you add you

to my ever-growing list of "Clark supporters who really are Liberals & making me eat crow on my former opinion that they weren't".

Please don't do that. Eating crow is painful I assure you. The world was a lot easier when I could picture you all with 2 horns!

On edit: Thank you.

[mikehiggins]

62. Uh, sorry. I won't do it again. Honest. eom

[Dark Star]

66. Referring you to

#'s 3 and 17. Please add me to your ever growing list. Thank you.

:evilgrin: O8) :toast:

[Tinoire]

67. Added. Damn you.

:toast:

But each name I have to add really hurts. Another stake through my heart ;)

[Piltdown13]

71. Me too, I hope

I don't think ANYONE should be excluded from the process until they officially drop out of the race. Kucinich and Sharpton are probably not going to take any primaries, but they bring valuable insights to the table. Any suggestion that they should be barred from further debates is undemocratic at best.

Now, as far as Lieberman goes, well, I'd prefer that he drop out sooner rather than later, but I have to be consistent -- if one lower-polling candidate gets to stay, they all do.

[Tinoire]

78. Lol - All of you

are going to rot in hell for doing this to me ;) But let me be clear- I love Clark supporters but I still don't like Clark. If I could gently shatter your illusion that Clark is a good guy, I will die happy.

The best of everything to you Pittdown! I like the reasonins powers Clark supporters possess- we just differ on where to draw the line.

[corporatewhore]

51. yep the black viewpoint should be left out of the debate

[Tinoire]

59. Right. We don't exist. Don't pay taxes. Why should we have a voice?

Hey, have you seen my hoing tools? And then when I'm done with that I have lots of cotton to pick tonight. Sigh...

[corporatewhore]

56. DK is the only union card holder Racist and Classist=NYTimes

[frustrated_lefty]

24. No.

They're doing what the DNC will do next week. Anyone who is clearly not in the running will be asked to bow out. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it's not racism.

[mikehiggins]

76. Let me explain something

As long as Al Sharpton is on the stage, blacks are on the stage. Black problems are on the stage. Racism is on the stage. It can't be ignored. It can't be sluffed off with some carefully nuanced statement that only means what you want it to mean at whatever time you are questioned about it.

The black race is there, and cannot be denied, not by the the rich, white, got-it-made candidates or the rich, white, got-it-made commentators and pundits and pollsters. Blacks are not, for that few moments when Al Sharpton is on camera on that stage, invisible.

That is why blocking him out is racist. Blocking Al Sharpton from the public stage is blocking tens of millions of blacks from the public stage, denying the existence of one of the major roadblocks to our claim of a country with freedom and justice for all.

How can doing something like that not be racist?

[tmwat]

34. Don't think so

DK and Sharpton are just the ones that are talking the loudest about ideas which run counter to the corporate agenda.

Remember, the piece also calls for debate sponsors to consider dropping Lieberman (hey, now there's an idea!).

[Auntie Bush]

36. Not racism because they want Kucinich out too

But is it fair or right? "NO". Does it make it easier for the public to pick a leader? "Yes". The actual possible nominees NEED more than a minute to explain their positions. How else can they differentiate who they are? If they can't adequately tell us the media will do it for them...horrors.

[corporatewhore]

54. racism and classism DK is the only union card holder

[Auntie Bush]

38. On second thought

it's nice to have them up there touting to the public just how awful Bush is. It's nice to here them really badmouth Bush and say some of he things they would like to say...but can't. Didn't Allen Colms (forgot his name, thank goodness) have the same problem when they denied him the opportunity to debate?

[dsc]

40. I tend to agree with you

but for a slightly different reason. Once Sharpton has an opportunity to run in a state where he has actually put in a good amount of effort (SC), then he should be judged. Kucinich put in a great amount of money and effort into New Hampshire and Iowa and got showings that were barely better than Sharpton's. That is why there is a problem with what they did.

Sharpton should run in SC and then if he does very poorly he should be considered on the same plane as Kucinich and Lieberman.

[corporatewhore]

43. yes and to exclude DK is classist (only union member)

[Freddie Stubbs]

80. Kucinich earns over $135,000 a year

Union member? When was the last time he ever did any manual labor or worked at any job that was unionized?

[jenk]

46. no, sharpton should be allowed to campaign, but with the debates...

it's a different story, the people need a look at the 4 candidates who are actually running to be president and not for face time.

[corporatewhore]

49. yep we cant have any blacks add their voice to the debates

[mikehiggins]

50. But there's the problem, Jenk

If you shut Sharpton out of the debates, you're shutting out the only person of color that's running. You have to be able to see that is just wrong, right?

[arewethereyet]

53. not racist, just arrogant yet true

Sharpton and Jucinich have earned a voice at the convention and will get it. Time to step aside.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. The debates are about choosing a President.

Therefore anyone who has no realistic chance whatsoever is wasting everybody's time.

[corporatewhore]

61. yeah why do we need a black mans voice in the debates any way

dont you realise that sharpton brings up issues and perspectives in the debates that some one like kerry or dean would not know like i have been called a greasy mexican and i think that sharpton is the only one who can relateto me on racism and what it is like to be degraded just because of the color of our skins

[mikehiggins]

65. It that were true, if you ask me Clark would be the only guy on the stage

Its all a matter of opinion in the end. Who decides? It can't be the media or the pollsters or the pundits or even the New York Times.

We are the Democratic Party and black Americans are an important part of our big tent. Nobody has the right to tell anyone to stand outside. Those who do are racists, pure and simple.

As a practical matter, for all you folks for whom principles aren't enough, consider this. Al Sharpton represents a constituency inside the Party. If we don't have time to listen to him, we don't have time to listen to them.

And we might as well stay home in November.

As to this debate crap? Only a moron considers those things a debate. South Carolina showed us how to do this thing with their forum the other day. Every candidate got to come in, one at a time, answer questions from real people, respond to what the people cared about and then get off stage to make room for the next.

Sure there was posturing and posing but there was a lot more said by each man in that format than in any of the staged, white bread circuses put on by the media. And Al Sharpton got a standing ovation when he finished. Go figure.

Let's have more forums and more honest questioning by real people with problems and issues. And Al Sharpton and Dennis Kuchinich should be right in the mix with the rest.

Jo-mentum? Eh, I don't really care ;^)

[Piltdown13]

73. I'm starting to think debates are actually about generating soundbites

These "mass press conferences" we have aren't much like real debates. Sometimes I think that the point is actually to generate sound bites that the media can latch onto and repeat (and/or distort) ad nauseam, as well as provide a national platform for trivial attacks. They certainly aren't useful for generating actual information people can use to choose a candidate to support. I'd be more open to the "thin the field" argument if I thought we'd get substantive debates once the field narrowed, but I'm too cynical to believe that's really going to happen.

[mikehiggins]

63. Are? In regard to arrogant?

Are you serious?

Surely you don't have to like Al Sharpton to recognise that he is speaking for millions and millions of oppressed people everywhere?

Don't they have the right to have their interests represented, even if the guy doing it is not to our (white) liking?

This is simple racism at bottom, and its wrong.

And people on DU should be the first to recognise that.

[arewethereyet]

82. the arrogance is in voicing an opinion at all

they are a paper, the point of the debate is for the PEOPLE to hear the ideas and justifications to aid them in their choices.

Rev Sharpton has had his opportunity to plead the issues near and dear to his heart and by his actions will have earned the right to voice them again at the convention.

At this juncture its time to seperate the wheat from the chaff and time spent away from that is counterproductive.

[genius]

64. Absolutely. They don't want Bush's biggest opponents to speak. Kucinich

has the Times shaking in fear because their corporate backers don't want America to know the truth about corporate America. By the way, any candidate who wants my vote in the GE must demand that they stay in.

[Cheswick2.0]

77. NYT racist? Maybe, but I am finding your reasoning a little questionable

Are you so sure that Sharpton can only represent the African American constituency? Is he a novelty candidate, or is it possible that other people like him too?

I am not saying you are racist but you might want to read over your posts and see if you aren't sticking Rev Al in a comfortable box of your own design. Is he running to represent Black people or is he bringing a message for all of us?

[mikehiggins]

79. Representing or bringing a message? Not mutually exclusive IMHO.

but you'd have to ask him.

He seemed pretty clear on the point at the South Carolina forum.

But if he is only "bringing a message for all of us" does that make it okay to eliminate the only black leader from these so-called "debates"?

I don't think so. As long as Al runs, and as long as he is black, I think it is only in the best interest of society and the party to give him a forum from which to speak. He's a candidate, a recognised national figure, and a man with a widespread following.

If he's not suited to the tastes of the NYT editorial board that is there problem, not his and not ours.