Bret Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 14:17

How is doing a politically expedient thing such as associating with someone who’ll help you get votes showing ones view of justice? Politicians will be politicians.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 16:16

I am sure it is politically expedient, but so would be having Romney assassinated. Would you consider that “politicians will be politicians” as well? I think I draw the line at endorsing illegal activity and open corruption of the rule of law.

Bret Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 16:36

You really see only a modest difference between associating with Sharpton and having Romney assassinated?

Which illegal activity are you referring to?

Hey Skipper Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 16:52

Bret:

Will associating with Sharpton gain more votes than it will cost?

As for illegal activity, he was found guilty of slander, and owes hundreds of thousands in unpaid taxes. Although he won’t see a court on this, if the word has any meaning, add extortion to the list.

Bret Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 17:08

And the Obama administration explicitly endorsed those behaviors?

Yes, associating with Sharpton will gain more than it will cost. You weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway, were you?

Hey Skipper Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 18:55

Explicitly, no. But there are plenty who will judge Obama by the company he keeps.

Besides, to whom is this going to appeal besides blacks, who are already firmly on side?

I could see some Jews reconsidering.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 19:10

You really see only a modest difference between associating with Sharpton and having Romney assassinated?

No, I’m trying to find your dividing line, if any, where you no longer shrug at an act because it’s politically expedient. Illegality doesn’t seem to be it, so I’m unclear on how illegal such a thing must be.

As for specific illegal acts with regard to Al Sharpton, I listed them in the original post with links. I think it reasonable that if you embrace Sharpton, you embrace those as well. I also think that how the Obama Administration has inserted itself in to the Martin/Zimmerman case is an example of that embrace in action.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 20:16

There are also reports that the Department of Justice intervened to help out the protestors. Obama’s comment about how Trayvon “looked like my son” seems like another log on the civil strife / lynch mob fire. The DoJ’s lack of response to people putting bounties on Zimmerman. All together it’s quite the corruption of rule of law.

Bret Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 20:34

My dividing line is definitely before causing or calling for the assassination of a political opponent and definitely after spending time in the presence of someone who may have broken one or more laws at some point in their career. Those are pretty far apart in my mind.

Since Obama is an elected official, everybody should have access to him, even petty thugs like Sharpton. Surely every politician who ever lived has spent time with criminals.

Secondly, I don’t buy the guilt by association thang. People are flawed, I hang out with people, but that doesn’t mean I endorse their flaws. You know, let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that.

Relative to everything that’s wrong with Obama and his administration, I’m having trouble getting worked up over this.

Also, associating will Al Sharpton is relatively low down in my list to condemn Obama for relative to hanging out with Bill Ayers. Al Sharpton is a yawner in comparison.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 21:09

Bret;

There’s no “may” about it, Sharpton has been convicted in court.

Since Obama is an elected official, everybody should have access to him, even petty thugs like Sharpton. Surely every politician who ever lived has spent time with criminals.

It’s not about access — every cite I have above is the Obama Administration explicitly calling out to him, not just letting him get access. It’s one thing to spend time with criminals, it’s quite another (at least to me) to have your Administration laud him in public. It’s the same with your guilt by association note — it’s not about hanging out with, it’s about explicitly endorsing. I would consider you tainted if beyond hanging out with criminals you wrote multiple posts about how wonderful they were and how important to your life / business. You acquire guilt by association when you are the active party, not the (potentially grudging) recipient, because that is something over which you do have control.

Bret Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 22:20

Explicitly calling out to him? There was Al Sharpton, just minding his own business and the Obama administration went out of their way to find him? That might be true, but your cites don’t support that.

- The easter breakfast cite: Sharpton attended, for all we know from the article, he may have gate-crashed.

- I don’t watch videos (or TV for that matter), so all I know from the second cite is that some random federal employee said something about him.

- I dislike Holder immensely, but let’s put that aside for the moment and give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s pandering to Sharpton in order to keep the country from coming apart at the seems because of race conflict. It seems to me like he actually handled that one reasonably well.

- The last one was Sebelius talking to NAN. It’s not even for sure that Sharpton was in attendance while Sebelius spoke.

So really, I don’t see from your cites any really blatant “calling out” to Sharpton, except in the case of Holder, where it might’ve been the wise thing to do in order to avoid race riots, mayhem, and death. Now, you may have followed the links and done further research, but from what you’ve presented, it looks like you’re really groping to find support for a pre-determined narrative.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 23:10

Here’s another cite on the invitation for Sharpton to Easter at the White House. You might note it is dated before Easter, which makes gate crashing a rather dubious proposition.

I hardly think the Secretary of Labor is “some random federal employee”. From the link

Be sure to watch all the way through for a weird pander to Al Sharpton. Solis salutes him for “keeping it real.”

Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor. That’s a Cabinet level position.

NAN run by Al Sharpton. I just can’t see that as a tenuous connection.

from what you’ve presented, it looks like you’re really groping to find support for a pre-determined narrative.

I think that’s what you’re doing by (for instance) changing “Secretary of Labor” to “some random federal employee”. I noted specifically that Sharpton was invited to the White House Easter, which you turned in to gate crashing. The only one I think is possibly dubious is Sebelious but addressing a group Sharpton leads (not just some member) makes it relevant.

In actual fact, I didn’t start out to write this but these reports went across my screen and I thought “gosh, that’s a lot of Sharpton love from the Administration” given who, exactly, Sharpton is and what he represents. I don’t think of him as some failed rabble rousers but as one of the most vile people in public life today. He should be an untouchable pariah.

Bret Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 23:43

“Sharpton love”? Hmmm.

I didn’t realize Solis was secretary of labor. The cite didn’t say that, I just thought she was someone’s secretary. I never heard of her. Hot Air’s at best a little misleading. Sharpton’s radio show is called “Keeping it Real”. Solis’s comment would make more sense if one happened to know that.

You can add other cites now, but your original 4 are unconvincing to me.

Sharpton’s bad, but an untouchable pariah? Which of his many transgressions puts him in that category for you?

Obama and Sharpton are birds of a feather anyway. Both black community organizer/activists who dislike the United States. Between the two of them, I’m only slightly glad that it’s Obama who’s president. Obama’s more refined but I doubt he’s more honest.

Hey Skipper Friday, 20 April 2012 at 00:06

Which of his many transgressions puts him in that category for you?

How about slander? From the Wikipedia on the Brawley hoax:

Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason generated a national media sensation. The three claimed officials all the way up to the state government were trying to cover up defendants in the case because they were white. Specifically, they named Steven Pagones, an Assistant District Attorney in Dutchess County, as one of the rapists, and a racist, among other accusations.¹¹

Or how about the Crown Heights Riots, which he fomented. Two dead, three seriously injured.

Or calling for “civil disobedience” is Zimmerman isn’t convicted. Extortion, anyone?

Bret Friday, 20 April 2012 at 00:48

I’m aware he did all those things. I’m just surprised that puts him in the untouchable pariah caste. Or are all liberals untouchable pariahs as far as you’re concerned?

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 20 April 2012 at 06:36

I didn’t realize Solis was secretary of labor. The cite didn’t say that

Actually it did. If you look at the video still it is titled “Obama’s Labor Secretary”. My link also noted that.

I’m aware he did all those things. I’m just surprised that puts him in the untouchable pariah caste. Or are all liberals untouchable pariahs as far as you’re concerned?

To paraphrase, you see no difference between advocating liberal policies and fomenting mob violence that ends in deaths? It’s not that much of a reach to consider Sharpton to have had people assassinated, which is what brought my Romney analogy to mind earlier ( “will no one rid me of this pestilent merchant?”). I think Sharpton is more toxic than David Duke or Reverend Wright. That you can shrug him off is just stunning to me.

I also don’t see of what my cites fail to convince you. What would it take to make you think it reasonable to call out Obama for endorsing Sharpton?

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 20 April 2012 at 07:08

I think this is all particularly relevant because of the national interest in the Martin/Zimmerman case with which Sharpton is heavily involved. I don’t see how this support for Sharpton cannot be read politically as support for his actions of supporting mob violence and subverting the rule of law. There are real concerns for the physical safety of witnesses which is witness intimidation in my book. To invite such a person to the White House rather than soundly condemn him to calm the situation? Words fail me.

Hey Skipper Friday, 20 April 2012 at 10:31

I’m just surprised that puts him in the untouchable pariah caste. Or are all liberals untouchable pariahs as far as you’re concerned?

Maybe I’m just a sensitive soul, but slander and deadly incitement to violence do rather put me off. Rapists too, speaking of another category that appears not to overly trouble Progressives, depending on who the rapist is.

No, not all liberals are pariahs, just as not all pariahs are liberals. But can you point at anyone who is not a Progressive with anything like his track record?

And then gets face time with the President?

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 20 April 2012 at 11:13

Skipper;

I guess where Sharpton really sets me off is his contempt for rule of law. Almost everything he does strikes at it. Not just in the sense that any criminal is violating a law, but at the very idea of law (false prosecution, mob violence). Obama, who has demonstrated a rather large contempt of the same sort, teaming up is very disturbing. I see witnesses in the Martin/Zimmerman case being intimidated by the guy who’s enjoying Easter at the White House and I can’t be silent. How is that not what criminal gangs do, except from the highest offices of the executive branch (President and Attorney General)? What respect is there left to have for law enforcement?

Bret Friday, 20 April 2012 at 13:09

aog wrote: “What would it take to make you think it reasonable to call out Obama for endorsing Sharpton?”

You;re moving the goal posts. I don’t think it unreasonable to note connections between Obama (and his administration) and various less than admirable people such as Sharpton, Ayers, Wright, etc.

I don’t agree with the “endorsing”, “embracing”, showing its “view of justice”, etc.

At the bottom your post you ask, “At what point may we reasonably assume that the Obama Administration’s view of justice is the same as that of a lynch mob?” The post only works if one has already assumed that. In this case, your conclusion is your assumption. It’s your narrative. (It happens to be mine too, and I’ll come back to that in a moment, but that’s beside the point).

My dad was an alcoholic. I associated with my dad. I’d even occasionally invite him to do something. But you’d be completely wrong to assume that I embrace alcoholism, endorse heavy drinking, that it’s my view of justice that it’s okay to bail on family, friends, and job and become a drunken bum sleeping in the gutter (which is what he did). And you’d know that because you’d assume I was associating with him because he was my dad, not because I’m a fan of heavy drinking.

So a neutral observer would assume that Obama is associating with Sharpton to get votes or for other political advantage, not because Sharpton “foments mob violence that ends in deaths”. You’re not a neutral observer and that’s okay. I’m just pointing out that your non-neutrality is blatantly obvious in this post. You’re assuming your narrative and looking for tidbits to fit it.

I happen to mostly share your narrative, but apparently a more extreme version. I don’t see much difference between what I believe Obama’s core morality, values, and beliefs are and what I believe Sharpton’s core morality, values, and beliefs are. They’re both Alinskiite community activist/organizers power grabbers at heart. Obama just took a different and more successful path to power than Sharpton. So I guess it’s not much news to me that the Obama administration doesn’t shun Sharpton.

Which is sort of what you’re saying, except backwards. Your saying that because of some tidbits, we can deduce that Obama has a particular view of justice. I’m saying that I believe Obama has that particular view of justice, so I find these tidbits pretty weak and unenlightening (i.e. is that really the best you can do?). So if you had presented it as “here’s my view of Obama and here’s some evidence that fits that view” I would be in complete agreement. But you’re pretending to be neutral, I’m calling you on it, and pointing out that if one was neutral, the evidence is really weak.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 20 April 2012 at 14:11

Bret;

I don’t agree with the “endorsing”, “embracing”, showing its “view of justice”, etc.

I think we’ll just have to disagree on that. What’s to call out if you don’t buy guilt by association?

I see an Administration highlighting its relationship with Sharpton precisely at the same time Sharpton is engaged in his perversion of rule of law.

In that regard, check the dates on those cites - they are not culled from over the years, they are ones I have seen in the last couple of months. I don’t see it as “looking for tidbits” because I did not look for any of them. They accumulated and then I wrote my post, I did not decide to write this and then find these cites.

I think your analogy with you Dad fails because it was, to a large extent, not a relationship you chose. Obama with Sharpton is entirely by choice. There is a wide variety of people you can embrace to get votes or political advantage, which ones are chosen IMHO says a lot about you and your views. Picking Sharpton vs., say, Cory Booker, tells the tale to me. That’s just how I roll.

you’re pretending to be neutral

I am sorry if you got that impression, but I explicitly renounce any claim of neutrality. I am very strongly opinionated and ideological, and use this place to express that. Feel free to preface everything I write here with “In my heavily biased opinion …”.

Bret Friday, 20 April 2012 at 14:31

If I was guilty by association of everything that anyone I’ve ever interacted with ever did, Oi, that would be a tough rap to take. So no, I don’t buy the guilt by association sort of thing.

You’re lucky that you’ve only ever associating with completely ethical and legal people. For many of us, the world is a little messier.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 20 April 2012 at 23:11

I am saved by two things —

• I concern myself mostly with those I actively seek out for public association with and have my subordinates call out for public acknowledgement and praise in my official capacity.
• I think there’s a bit of a gap between someone like Sharpton and “completely ethical and legal people” and most of my associates fall in that space.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 09:09

What about this for guilt by association — Jon Corzine is still a campaign donation bundler for the Obama Campaign.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 13:44

While repulsive and a WTH moment, it’s also probable that only a small percentage of Americans know who Corzine is, and how illegal his actions were, and in any case the real, overwhelming, lasting, abominable but obscure-to-the-public damage to American society was done by Obama’s admin. refusing to prosecute him.

Bret Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 23:45

This (if true), is a much bigger tidbit in my opinion.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 08:39

It’s all of a piece. If you take that sort of thing as context for the White House outreach to Sharpton you have a group deliberately using mob violence / civil unrest as political expedients. It is why I find Sharpton so particularly odious as he seems to be the top of the list of people to contact when that’s what you want.