Al Sharpton to Alan Grayson: I didn't endorse you, so don't use me in your ad
Source: The Miami Herald
Civil rights leader the Rev. Al Sharpton wants Democrat Alan Grayson to take down an online ad he launched this month that seems to imply the Orlando congressman has Sharpton's endorsement in Florida's competitive U.S. Senate race.
Ten days ago, Grayson posted on his Facebook page a video ad that shows Sharpton praising Grayson as a strong progressive. The 15-second spot includes undated footage from Sharpton's previous MSNBC show "PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton," which is edited so Sharpton says the following seamlessly:
"Now more than ever the Democrats need strong voices -- progressives, who are willing to fight for the causes they believe in. ... Joining me now is the man himself, Congressman Alan Grayson."
The footage seems to be a combination of two clips parsed from a single segment on Sharpton's show. The footage appears to be about three years old (a background graphic references the 113th Congress, which started in 2013).
Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2016/07/al-sharpton-to-alan-grayson-i-didnt-endorse-you-so-dont-use-me-in-your-ad.html
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)He got some serious balls to do that. Reverend Al hasn't even endorsed Hillary Clinton yet
7962
(11,841 posts)He's proven that long ago. He's also proven that he doesnt care when he's caught
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Proof that the broletariat will go wherever you want if you say the right things on TV
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He would lose miserably were he nominated.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Grayson and Murphy have been gaffing all over, while Lazy Marco is teflon.
Fucking media.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Yea he is way smarter than Trump but he goes overboard in a similar way... had bully attitude and has a shit ton of baggage. I use to be a fan but not so much now. His mental health is questionable.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Do the good folks who slam Grayson on this thread think TPP is the world trade "Gold Standard"?
Well,
do ya'?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Trump is against TTP as well.
I know you would not defend him.
Grayson is ethically compromised. Supporting some things we favor does not change that fact.
Skittles
(153,310 posts)nothing changes that, either
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Judi Lynn This message was self-deleted by its author.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,682 posts)Why anyone can't see imposters pretending to be Democrats is beyond my understanding.
There's every reason in the world to respect and admire Alan Grayson. We're lucky he is available and willing to serve real Democratic principles.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Corporatism/neoliberalism is the disease.
I just hope it's not fatal for the Democratic Party.
IMO, the only cure is Progressivism.
If We The People lose our grip on the Democratic Party, America is in mortal danger,
and the Republic could go bye bye, Trump notwithstanding..
I'm so glad at least some of us can see this obvious fact.
Thanks for commenting.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Or is anyone to the right of you not a progressive?
nikto
(3,284 posts)Progressivism opposes TPP and the big trade deals written by corporate insiders, fracking, privatizing public schools, War-based Neocon foreign policy (a la Dubya Bush and Cheney), and more military expenditures (Progressives generally want to reform/cut the military budget).
Progressivism supports establishing Public Banking, re-instating Glass-Steagall and
regulating wall st more strongly, taking action on climate change (supporting renewables, esp),
higher taxes on the wealthy, Single-Payer HC, free college (at least thru community college),
strengthening SS and Medicare/Medicaid, NOT cutting or privatizing them, making voting MUCH easier, Living wages for ALL workers,
campaign reform and the ELIMINATION of Citizens United, expanded early childhood education/care services, universal background checks on all gun purchases, coast-to-coast police reform (citizen review boards, neighborhood policing policies, body-cams, etc), big increases in infrastuctrure spending, coast-to-coast.
On social issues, Progressives stand unequivocally for marriage equality and all forms of gay rights, abortion-choice, universal access to birth control, and better treatment of immigrants, in a number of areas.
There's more, of course, but those are most of the major ones.
So the answer to your question (who gets to define Progressivism), is:
ANYBODY who wants to.
All you have to do is appraise their stands on those issues (and maybe a few others), and that will indicate how Progressive a person is.
You asked for my opinion on this topic, and that is it.
Perhaps it sounds like a boring process, but it is fair, IMO,
and that's how I do it.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And I agree with most of your list. Not all.
I do not favor single payer a la Canada but one like many European countries have. A subsidized, means tested insurance system. We are probably quibbling of details on this issue.
I believe is affordable, means tested college costs, not free.
Not carte blanch opposed to fracking, but certainly not the free for all we have now. Because natural gas is the best stop gap option while we move to renewables, which I support.
I would go more radical than you in one area...I would eliminate right-to-work options for the states. Make unions stronger and easier to form.
Opposed to public banking as it would soon become a tool for politicians largess and would need continual bailouts. I prefer a stronger credit union system.
Finally, I want very strong, profitable and highly regulated American businesses where workers rights are considered along with profits. Would love the German system where labor has a spot on the board. But regardless, business is the goose laying the golden egg. I want it to prosper so long as part of the golden egg goes to the workers.
So while I am perhaps to the right of you on some issues, I still consider myself progressive.
I like Kaine. Good man and good Democrat.
You have a very nice weekend.
nikto
(3,284 posts)I overlooked that--My error.
Thanks for reminding me.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Your concern about a Public Banking system is warranted.
The danger of insider-abuse would have to be eliminated by almost unprecedented transparency,
which admittedly does not exist now. Corporate/banking/financial insiders entanglement with gov't officials
becomes a nexus of corruption, it would seem, almost every time.
As in Brazil:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/19/brazilian-police-arrest-building-executives-petrobras-bribes-scandal
IMO, gov't-insider corruption can only be eliminated by total exposure to The Public.
Now that would be a type of reform I'd really like to see.
Of note:
Public Banking seems to work well in North Dakota, admittedly a small-population state.
I would guess it's pretty transparent too.
So it is doable.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/03/how-nation%E2%80%99s-only-state-owned-bank-became-envy-wall-street
dembotoz
(16,866 posts)vote for him in a minute if i lived down there