Why is Tawana Brawley so easily dismissed on DU?

It seems every time it's mentioned in a thread the pro-Sharpton people will rip into that person and bash them for bringing up something that happened a long time ago, or how it doesn't matter because now he's bringing up issues to the Dem debate, or how he has some excuse for it, ect. ect. And then occaisonally the racist accusatings fly. I was once called racist simply for asking if anyone thought Sharpton could carry anything but DC, and in that thread pointing out that Sharpton has no chance at the nomination anyway so it's just a hypothetical. Furthermore if someone says they don't want Sharpton to speak at the convention because of Tawana Brawley, or because he once endorsed Al D'Amato, or any other of the laundry list of reasons many dislike him, someone will shrug off the reason and occaisonally play the racist card. I don't see how this is any less ridiculous than the claims that Lieberman bashing is anti-Semetic.

Now if you are willing to forgive Sharpton over Tawana Brawley and all, fine, but I don't see why "I don't like Sharpton because of Tawana Brawley" is not an accepted viewpoint on DU by many. It could be argued that this is a very tired subject that's been done to death many times like Kerry's Skull and Bones membership, but I still don't see why those are no longer valid reasons to not like either of them.

are either a racist anti-Semite or an anti-Semitic racist.

Don't you know what you are?


:shrug: :spank: :silly: :evilgrin:

:toast:

but admittedly a thread today made it even worse for me. I hadn't thought of what would have happened to that officer in prision. While I am very happy with the way Sharpton has conducted himself now I am very upset over this and his lack of acknowledgment of the huge error is was.

...and I was flamed all the way to hell for it.

but I do like his ability to keep the others honest. And he is proving to be a voice for his constituancy more effective than any before. Lets face it, this was never a serious attempt at public office but its a damned effective bully pulpit that can't be ignored.

And in his real competition, he's game set and match KILLED his. Doubt it ? What ever happened to Jessie Jackson ?

Heck, anyone who forces the candidates to confront the Digital Divide and slams the horrible effect of debasing lyrics in rap music is getting it done for me. But I'll also never forget or forgive that incident in his past.

everyone knows about Tawana Brawley. What is the benefit at this point of bringing it up? I honestly can't tell you the last time I discussed which direction the sun rises and sets in, either, because there is no point in it. It's the same with Brawley. I'm sure if Sharpton begins polling well, the issue will spring up, but until then, people are more interested in what Sharpton brings to the table; not what keeps him from getting a better place at the table.

the incident still stands as a valid reason to dislike him.

So let's talk about it some more. Let's let it all out. What does it accomplish? Does it somehow validate your dislike of Sharpton, if everyone agrees with you about Brawley?

Let me tell you a little secret: I'm a black man who was deeply shamed by the Brawley incident. You. Have. No. Clue. How. Much. But you know what? I also know what Sharpton can do for his constituency, which is filled with people still living in an environment I was lucky enough to escape. And if Sharpton, by going out and pressing his case now, can improve the lives of those people, if he can get their message out, I don't care about the Tawana Brawley incident. Like most people, I'm concerned about the future I can make, not the past I can't fix.

I have lots of reservations about Sharpton, and I know I could throw him a lot farther than I trust him. But he's out there right now doing good, and I want to let him keep it up, not screw everything up by beating a horse that died 20 years ago. The more you, or anyone, talk about Brawley, the more you cloud the message Sharpton gets out, quite frankly, better than all the rest of our candidates combined. That's too high a price to pay just so a few people can feel good about how bad Sharpton used to be.

you make a lot of excellent points. I grew up in upstate NY, was roughly a young adult when the Brawley incident occurred, and I recall the racial animosity that it stirred. It was unfortunate.

However, I do think that the good Sharpton has done far outweighs the negatives of the Brawley situation (and it was never clear to me if Sharpton knew of the situation beforehand or not). Yes, the right wing will call this up every time Sharpton appears on the radar. But until they are willing to similarly condemn the Willie Horton ads from Poppy's campaign, which occurred roughly at the same time, I take no stock in their seeming outrage.

He has a past and he is responsible for that past but what he IS doing in the present speaks volumes as well.

:thumbsup:

I agree.

Forget Brawley. There's the Michael Jackson tickets for his "youth group." There's the hundred or so "volunteer" demonstrators available on a moment's notice for any street in NYC, or anywhere else for that matter. There's the construction shakedowns. There's the matter of how he lives with no reported income-- that's $0 per year.

And the list goes on. I used to follow the Sharpton Follies when I lived in NY, and they were always a hoot.

This guy may sometimes look the clown, but he is far from stupid, and he's got an eagle eye for the issues. He's taken Jesse Jackson's mantle talking up the issues from the old civil rights marching wing of the party, and he's doing a damn good job of it.

I can't really conceive of him actually having the reigns of power, the best I can say is that he's probably not as big a crook as some of them out there, but we really need to hear his voice. He's saying a lot of stuff the others might like to, but dare not, and he's keeping the debate honest from the point of view of the very large and important black population of the party. Of the country.

saying it was a long time ago is dismissive to the pain the officers and their families go through. how do you think they feel when they see Al on the TV as a candidate for president?

i admit, my glee at his success as a speaker comes with a sense of guilt.

as to the issue of his speaking at the convention...part of me would purely love to see if happen but it better not.

Patriot Act or the Iraq War vote. I find the Tawana Brawley debacle mild compared to jailing somebody without a trial or sending somebody to war on reasons based on a lie.

the ugly truth people here don't want to face.

A day doesn't go by withouy a DUer excusing a failing of their candidate under the banner of "pragmatism"

Unless it's Sharpton.

The hospital got a good rape kit (subsequently lost by the police) but no body was ever arrested or charged. No suspects were ever named. The shame of Dutchess County.

as much as you like but we are on a path to beat G. Bush and will not be side tracked by trivalities. We do have an exit strategy and thatis the whitehouse and if Al can help to get us there then I say "bring him on".

The title of the thread is Tawana Brawley.

Welcome to D.U.! :hi: :hi: :hi:

That's what people forget. The whole story from top to bottom was a fabrication.

And I could care less about some smear against him that has nothing to do with the ideals he promotes.

Also, claims that to bash Lieberman is somehow anti-Semetic are ridiculous (unless one is bashing his religion. Personally, I think his Orthodox religion is nice. It keeps folks who can endure the rigors of it focused.). The simple reason that I don't like Lieberman is because he likes to bash Democrats and he uses his position to protect big buisnesses instead of trying to limit their already too enormous power.

fine. you feel that way about him. but many others don't, and the fact that you disagree doesn't make it any less valid of a reason. I personally think the Skull and Bones conspiracy theories about Kerry are riduculous, but I will accept that as a valid reason for someone to dislike him, even though I disagree.

so what?

Everybody has heard it a thousand times. Everybody knows it is his fuckup. Sometimes I think his point was that people just consider the question.

It's like Clinton's blow job. Yeah, it was wrong, and certainly STUPID. How fucking sick of hearing about THAT are we?

How about OJ. Wanna rehash that travesty of justice too? Yeah, we know he did it, Yeah, the black community, and specifically the jury, both had (have) good reason not to trust the LA cops and the evidence.

In all three cases above both sides shout past each other and don't listen to each other. It's just a shit fest. lose-lose. There is no point - everyone is firmly fixed in a position and there is no point in trying to "argue" them over to another side. It's just a waste of time and causes more bad blood.

Sharpton threw his hat in the ring to add something to the debate. He doesn't expect to win the nomination, he simply wants force his talking points for the constituents he represents into the points that are addressed by the other candidates, and push the platform to the left. He's actually been quite impressive on several issues, I might add.

Don't panic for God's sake. Forget about Tawana Brawley already. Just listen to him. He makes a lot of sense.

Tawana Brawley I guess she is a voiceless victim like so many in Iraq in AF...
Ask NOW about Tawana or their endorsement of Clinton

Or "Kerry's Skull and Bones" or any other drone crap

now he's a populist.

Because bringing up Brawley is like... bringing up Chappaquidick everytime Ted Kennedy's name is mentioned.

it would be quite correct to bring up Chappaquiddick if Ted Kennedy were running for president. but he's not. and you can bet that Chappaquiddick is a big part of the reason why. now, to balance out that one scandal, Ted Kennedy has - what - 40 or so years in the senate, with numerous positive accomplishments. even so, they can't completely erase the stain.

contrast this with Sharpton. he also has a stain, but he doesn't have anywhere near the degree of positive contributions to balance it out. he's never been elected to any office, let alone anything near the highest office in the land. all he's got is a big mouth, which if you look at his past, is as much a liability as it is an asset. furthermore, he IS running for president, and this Tawana Brawley incident alone is enough to sink him. he is fatally tainted. and worse still, he isn't even apologetic about his mistake.

He stood outside known drug houses in New York, demonstrated, made a lot of noise, and got the police department to shut them down. This seemed to have happened multiple times.

He has a lengthy career of services to his community which have never been publicized outside the city, and can only be realized by people elsewhere trying to find out by reading.

That Whitewater, Foster, drug running, and Juanita Broaderick were FICTIONAL crises? Ron Brown is really dead, though. Not Clintons fault, no reasonable person can say that.

Chappaquidick really happened, and Tawana Brawley case really happened. Sharpton never did apologize for his fraud, did he?

Don't discredit Clinton please by bringing up FAKE scandals.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/13/brawley.verdict.02/

Please also remember that Sharpton never paid a nickel of these damages.

Edit to add link...

it's how the media and the RNC would have a feld day with that story. I make no judgement on him and that whole episode....I hardly remember it frankly. But I suspect that the media would have a field day running with it.

As others have pointed out, he's never won an office he's run for at a State/Local level...do we really think he has a chance to win a national election?

That's what makes it contentious. You would point to the slander finding against Sharpton? So he should apologize because he believed Brawley's story and pointed fingers? Some say the whole incident was a hoax, but other evidence suggests that the girl was indeed raped and brutalized and the perps are still at large.

When Moseley Braun was in the Senate I understand she sent a letter to Janet Reno asking that the case be re-examined. Don't know what became of that, but IMO a federal investigation is the only way we'll ever get to the botttom of this. Until that happens, I don't see how either apologies or forgiveness are called for. It's just conjecture and innuendo and won't lead to making informed decisions at the ballot box.

Sharpton has been willing to apologize for some racially divisive things he's said and done. Make what you will of his apologies (they're not all marked by an excess of contrition), but it demonstrates his willingness to heal wounds and work towards social harmony even at the cost of eating some humble pie.

Some news items:

• Interesting look at Sharpton's attempts to mend fences with Jews.
  
• another view posted on Sharpton's old campaign site.
  
• Sharpton as peacemaker during Diallo protests.
  

If you can believe the Voice's characterizations of Sharpton (and they seem pretty reasonable to me) then just saying "Tawana Brawley" as a kind of shorthand for "racial agitator" or whatever isn't very fitting. At best it's a distraction, and demands for him to apologize are unwarranted--in the political arena at least.

I am so impatient with this crowd of race baiters, who don't even realize the damage they are doing.

Thank you for a great response.

He pointed out, when Bob Edwards asked him about it, that he thought one thing, the jury thought another. Which is the same thing as the OJ deal was for many people. Why is it okay to believe the jury's findings in the TB case, but reject it in the OJ case? Doesn't it all just boil down to the speaker saying 'I go with the jury in TB but against it in OJ, which means the jury was right in TB and wrong in OJ, and if you don't agree with me, you're wrong'?

why is it so important to you to hold this one issue over Sharptons head and give other candidates the pass on so many other more important issues? Sorry kid, but you are looking a bit like a racist when you do that.

You don't know the truth about TB, none of us do, but you are willing to use Sharpton's "lack of apology" against him simply because you disagree with his conclusions about what happened.

Get off it already, post some outrage about what happens in NYC on a daily basis. How about a little outrage about Abner Louima or Patrick M. Dorismond?

Your double standard is why you get called racist. You might want to examine that.

Is anyone that disagrees with Sharpton's slandering of this police officer a racist?

Nice job playing "the race card"? Who are you Bill OReilly?

actually, this is the first thread I've ever made about Tawana Brawley (possibly even the first post), and the first thread that could actually be described as anti-Sharpton. Simply asking if anyone thought Sharpton could carry anything other than DC isn't bashing him, just pointing out a simple fact: he's the most unelectable candidate. My most bashed candidate is easily Lieberman, but of course everyone laughs at the anti-Semetism allegations there. I'm replying to others who have been bashed for bringing up Tawana Brawley and got the racist accusations.

Please show more threads that prove that I have a huge anti-Sharpton agenda and bring up Tawana Brawley at every opportunity. I do not, mainly because he has no chance at the nomination. However because of it (and other things, like his anti-Semetic comments and endorsement of D'Amato), I do not like or trust the guy.

I've never heard of those other incidents, and I imagine they too might be awful. However they also don't involve someone running for president.

I guess the question I posed in the original post stands her: do you believe "I don't like Sharpton because of Tawana Brawley" is a valid viewpoint? Or do you think every single person who dislikes him is automatically racist, and if so, how is that any less riduculous than claiming all Lieberman bashers are anti-Semetic? And I have bashed Lieberman FAR more than Sharpton, in fact I've probably bashed Kerry, who I've considered for supporting for the nomination before, more than Sharpton.

as Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt are about their votes on the Iraq war. Unlike the warmongering four, Sharpton cannot claim that he followed his conscience or what-have-you in the Brawley case. Sharpton exploited for his own personal gain Brawley's perjurious accusations against innocent people. Sharpton is still unrepentant about his despicable role, and he continues to this day, to smear the victims of the Brawley case.

I wouldn't accept a right-winger doing what Sharpton did in that case, why should I accept it from a left-winger? Mistakes I can accept (like a vote for the Iraq war, since repented) but continuing slander? Sorry, no way. (And I can't support Lieberman for his continued support of the war either.)

...and that agenda is NOT to seek the Truth.

'nuff said.

He's never held any public office before. He is a very good speaker, and can be really funny when he wants to be.

If Tawana Brawley hadn't been lying and she really had been assualted, he would be considered a hero for standing up for her. Instead, I see him as someone who saw her as a victim and took up her cause before he realized she was using him to further some type of crazy personal agenda.

...not everyone is going to just say, "OK, it's cool that you write off Sharpton because of Tawana Brawley." People are going to respond -- I would hope politely - but they are going to respond.

Many people seem unaware of the huge amount of official corruption in the 1980s. It was not at all unusual for police officers to refuse to investigate rapes and even shootings. In that kind of environment, an attitude sprang up, summed up by the statement, "I believe the children." When a child or a woman came forward with a story of outrage and violation, the inclination of many good people was to believe them, even if the story was incredible. And there were MANY injustices committed during that era of hysteria, a great many. Anyone who was at all active in women's or children's rape issues made some mistakes and sided with some victims who, as it turned out, weren't really victims. That's what hysteria is.

If Tawana Brawley had come to me, I don't doubt for a minute that I would have believed her story and tried to get justice for her. I just get the impression that Sharpton was honestly taken in. Even a highly intelligent person can be conned. I will be the first to admit that *I* have been conned. The only people who haven't been conned are people who have never opened their heart in the first place. I also have the impression that Sharpton is still not 100 percent sure of exactly what happened to Brawley and why she exaggerated, created, and/or retracted her story.

Everyone has baggage. But if a man's baggage is that he opened his heart and was too credulous in believing a young woman who seemed to be injured...is that such a terrible strike against him?