David Plotz on Al Sharpton in SlateDavid Plotz wrote a Slate assessment on Al Sharpton today, in which he included this passage: Sharpton is kingmaker not because he is getting stronger, but because the rest of the New York Democratic Party is so weak. George Pataki's and Rudy Giuliani's success has ripped the guts out of the party. The Democrats who held it together have vanished. Cuomo, Dinkins, and Ed Koch are gone. Moynihan is a national figure, not a local one. Hillary Clinton is an outsider. Old-time New York liberalism is discredited. In the rickety shack that remains, Sharpton is the strongest force, the only consistent and vigorous opposition to Giuliani. Sharpton's block of votes may be stagnant, but at least he can deliver them, which is more than any other Democrat can do. (Sharpton can also derail a campaign by putting demonstrators on the street against it.) This is why all Democratic candidates must pay homage to him While I think this is overstating the case somewhat, it's still interesting. But is Sharpton really "the only consistent and vigorous opposition to Giuliani"? What about Mark Green? What about Chuck Schumer? Is Old-time New York liberalism really discredited? Why? Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I get the idea that now Giuliani's done the dirty work, New York wouldn't mind going back to its old-time liberal roots -- after all, there's little downside, the crack whores and no-go areas aren't going to return. Here's what I think: the GOP heyday in New York is over. Giuliani will either lose to Hillary -- political death -- or will move to Washington. Pataki, having climed down over putting McCain on the ballot, has lost a lot of his strength. D'Amato's out, and Giuliani is such a power-hungry man that he hasn't let any other Republican gain a power base in New York City. |