In the 2010 primaries, Charlie Christ, then-Senator from Florida and a Republican In Name Only, faced several serious contenders for his seat. One of the most successful ads used against him by his staunchly conservative opponent, Marco Rubio, was an image of opportunist Charlie Christ hugging Obama at a rally where Charlie helped promote the stimulus package. Rubio's constant usage of the image, which reminded the Florida voters of Charlie's support for the stimulus, was a key factor in ousting Charlie from his Senate seat.
In the few short years since Obama has become president, he's caused unbelievable destruction for this country via the weakening of our global image, the wrecking of the economy, the heightened division between class and race, and other ruinous policies. Any politician who had supported Obama in reaching any of his goals deserves to have his opponents harp upon it and to be thrown out of office, as happened to Charlie Christ.
It is now barely two years after we got rid of Charlie Christ, and I'm left to wonder what has occurred to conservatives' demand for character. If an image of Charlie hugging Obama was so powerful two short years ago, why doesn't the image of one of our presidential candidates palling around with a different demagogue receive a similar outcry?
There are not too many political bloggers of whom I can say that I’ve agreed almost everything they’ve written the last several years. Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is one such an individual whose articles I read daily and generally nod along in agreement. It has therefore been a great honor for me, some time ago, to have been named as the “blog of the day” on his site.
It is precisely because of the respect and admiration that I have for his opinion that I’ve opted to pen this open letter directly to him though it’s applicable to all conservative Newt supporters.
Newt’s negatives won’t receive much scrutiny from his supporters, since they claim that his negatives are known, often twisted out of proportion, and apologized for. The most-oft repeated reason cited by conservative Newt supporters, is that they’ve chosen to disregard his flaws out of a lack for an alternative candidate whom they feel they can support. However, supporting a candidate for the presidency only because one has no one else to support isn’t a good enough excuse.
Yes, perhaps no one else is as articulate, polished, and experienced as Newt, thus resulting in anticipation for an Obama/Newt debate at which they envision Newt squashing Obama. However, anyone who has watched the 2008 debates will recall that Obama is actually an extraordinarily talented bluffer. He coolly and smoothly recited one outright lie after another, often prefaced with additional untruths like “I’ve always said that…” He created facts at the spur of the moment and openly contradicted past statements without the slightest hint of unease. If Newt is the candidate, Obama may simply have to spin some more lies, content in the knowledge that the media will cover for him.
Even if Newt makes minced meat out of Obama, in supporting Newt one has got to consider the consequences their support will have on the conservative brand.
Many conservatives had blasted the Democrat Party during the primary of 2008 for their shameless support of the radically liberal Obama. The conservatives who protested an Obama candidacy did so despite his almost nonexistent voting record since Obama’s voted “present” at every opportunity presented to him. With no record, what had caused conservatives to write him off as a radical left wing creature? Quite simply. They looked at the individuals he has associated with, for it is known that if one wishes to know what type of person an individual is one should look at those they associate with. Since his associates were of the most radical nature possible, it was obvious Obama was cut of the same cloth.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and many others therefore delved into the non-repentance of terrorist William Ayers and played audios of Obama’s reverend, Jeremiah Wright, cursing America, followed by Obama’s refusal to condemn them.
Majority of the right were unable to grasp how one can trust an unknown guy with such extreme radical ties with the presidency of the USA only because it was the cool thing to do and because it allowed one to be part of an historic event. Arguments of supporters included praise over his intelligence, articulation, ability to unite all fractions, and guarantee to victory, but conservatives wouldn’t accept any as a valid excuse to condone the Democrat Party’s support of Obama.
Couldn’t conservatives comprehend that putting Obama on the ballot provided an opportunity for many white people to assuage their guilt over their racist past by allowing them to pull the lever for a (half) black individual? Why couldn’t the conservative movement understand that no other Democratic candidate except for Obama would be able to accuse the other party for mocking his name and his looks? Was it so difficult to accept that no other candidate would have received the complete pass and adoration of the media that Obama got? Or that only he was capable of exciting the masses, drawing record-breaking crowds, attracting unheard of number of college students, give a voice to minorities, and be heralded as the messiah?
As a conservative, the responses they’ve given for supporting Obama had been incomprehensible to me, and I was glad and proud to be part of the conservative movement which valued character. Barely three years have passed, and to my utter dismay and disappointment I am shocked to watch as many within the conservative movement have expressed their support for Newt despite his association and praise for an individual whose hands are smeared with blood. How can one condone their support for Newt with excuses such as he’s the most intelligent, articulate, smooth talker when three years ago we wouldn’t accept a similar argument?
As a New Yorker I have been and am constantly exposed to the atrocities of Al Sharpton, and understand it’s pretty likely that many of you are unaware of his hatred-inciting nature and violent background. I’ve therefore penned a lengthy article detailing the atrocities of Al Sharpton, Newt’s chumminess with Sharpton, and the hypocrisy of the conservatives who are supporting him.
I therefore plead of you, William Jacobson, and all other Newt supporters to take the time and read the article, Resist We Much … Mr. Gingrich, with an open mind, give the matter careful consideration, and then decide whether you can continue supporting Newt.
The argument for Newt that he’s got a long record of accomplishments (including many non-conservative items) may be a valid one (though he’s also got a record of lobbying and not necessarily for conservative interests). However, even with a perfect record, his association with Al Sharpton is outright despicable and enough of a cause for conservatives to distance themselves from Newt.
Newt Gingrich was confronted by a African American in South Carolina about his declaration that teenagers should work. Newt replied that "I know Al" and he'd be glad to discuss it with him. In the article below you will see Newt's relationship with Al Sharpton and exactly what's so wrong with that.
After election night of 2008 had passed with Obama having emerged victorious, many conservatives were disappointed to hear that a powerful McCain ad had gone unaired due to McCain’s refusal to mention Obama’s anti-American Pastor. The ad, leaked after the elections were over, highlighted the very different paths the two candidates had taken as young men.
Narrator: Long before anyone knew who John McCain or Barack Obama were, one chose to honor his fellow soldiers by refusing to walk out of a prisoner of war camp. The other chose not to even walk out of a church where a pastor was spewing hatred.
Rev. Wright: Not God bless America! God damn America!
Narrator: Character matters, especially when no one’s looking.
No candidate is perfect since no human being is without flaws. It is therefore crucial for every individual to carefully research the strengths and flaws of each candidate and then choose to support a candidate despite his or her flaws. Obviously each individual will tolerate different flaws. For instance, some consider social issues to be a major deciding factor while others focus on a candidate’s voting record and yet a third individual look at executive experience as a priority. For most conservatives all of these are pretty high on the list. There is one vital component, however, which a candidate must have and which takes absolute priority above everything else; character. Character is what has made this country a beacon of light amongst the nations and what gives a person the strength to choose right from wrong. How can an individual be trusted to practice what they preach, fulfill their promises, and to make the correct choices in the unknown future if they lack basic character?
In 2008 McCain was of the minority amongst the conservative movement who opposed airing the above ad and who refused to denounce the fact that the Obamas had attended Wright’s church for over twenty years. The 2012 primary though is revealing that a considerable chunk and perhaps even a majority of the conservative movement no longer view character as a vital component of a candidate. With their support for a characterless candidate, they inevitably condone Obama’s friendship with terrorist William Ayers and the fact that Jeremiah Wright was privileged to have the Obama’s attend his church for over two decades.
Newt’s campaign has recently been gaining an increasing amount of traction as more and more conservative express their support for his candidacy. He has made a favorable impression on many thanks to his expert debating skills, his steadfastness to conservative talk, and his dignified presidential manner at the debates when he refused to engage in petty attacks against the others. These are indeed positive qualities and the excitement for an Obama/Gingrich debate is easily understood. However, it is crucial to stop and consider while one is still able, whether the serious implication that will result if the bulk of the conservative movement throws its support behind Newt is worth it, even it leads to victory. For Newt’s character is seriously lacking.
Two short years ago Gingrich had proudly teamed up, at the behalf of Obama, with the rabble-rousing demagogue Al Sharpton to promote the Obama administration’s education policies. Awareness of their joint project was accomplished via rallies across the country and appearances on Sunday TV Shows.
I couldn’t imagine where and what has qualified Al Sharpton to be an education expert until I remembered Obama’s response when questioned about his association with the terrorist William Ayers. Obama spoke of a guy he knew who worked in the education field with nary a mention of Ayers’ terrorist past, his continued support of terrorism after 9/11, or their true relationship. With education experts such as Ayers and Sharpton one has got the answer to the problems plaguing the education system at one’s fingertips.
Several months prior to the Gingrich/Sharpton education stint, Gingrich gracedAl Sharpton’s annual National Action Network Conference. For those unfamiliar, the National Action Network serves as Sharpton’s front, is used by Sharpton to promote racial division, and whose actions often fall into the violent and criminal category.
Gingrich’s readiness to team up with an individual such as Al Sharpton, who has no experience in education or any other field except for stirring up violence and racial divisiveness, is appalling. With their project completed, Gingrich continued to act chummy with violence-inciting Al Sharpton. This past October, Gingrich surprised Sharpton by calling into his TV show to wish him happy birthday. He praised the opportunistic, race baiting, hatred-inciting, narcissist, Al Sharpton, as one who “did a lot of good things.”
For those unfamiliar with Al Sharpton’s rabble-rousing violent history, here’s a sprinkling of the many acts he’s directly responsible for.
1987: Sharpton spread the incendiary Tawana Brawley Hoax despite his knowledge of the true facts. He heatedly played defendant of the 15-year-old black girl who was supposedly abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men, and singled out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor, as guilty of a crime which never occurred. Despite Sharpton being aware of Pagones innocence, he taunted him, “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” Pagones courageously fought for his innocence, sued Sharpton, and eventually won a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day though, Sharpton refuses to recant the slander or apologize for his role in the odious affair.
1989: Al Sharpton also led a vitriolic campaign to vilify the young white woman who had been raped and viciously beaten in the Central Park "wilding" case, since the rapist was black. He led demonstrations against the victim and accused her boyfriend of being the real assailant. Here too Al Sharpton never owned up to the facts despite the criminal’s admittance of his guilt and the DNA testing which proved the black rapist to be guilty of the crime.
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally killed Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child. An anti-Semitic riot erupted, and thanks to Sharpton’s arrival, it lasted for three full days. At Gavin’s funeral he railed against the “diamond merchants” -- code for Jews – who have “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilized and led hundreds of demonstrators who marched through the Jewish neighborhood and chanted “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, was surrounded by a frenzied mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and was stabbed to death. Two weeks later, Italian-American Anthony Graziosi, whose full beard and dark clothing caused him to be mistaken for a Hasidic Jew, was dragged out of his passing car, brutally beaten and stabbed to death.
1995: The United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raised the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart. Freddy’s white Jewish owner was therefore forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensued and before one could blink an eye Sharpton had arrived at the scene and jumped at the opportunity to incite racial hatred. “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business,” Sharpton proclaimed. He ignored the original cause of the rent hike and the lack of racist action from Freddy’s, and had \the National Action Network, set up picket lines. They spat and cursed as “traitors” and “Uncle Toms” anyone who dared shop at Freddy’s, and shouts of “Burn down the Jew store!” were heard. Protestors simulated the striking of matches while Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell kept the frenzy going with lines like “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers.” On Dec. 8, one of the protesters burst into Freddy’s, shot four employees point-blank, and then set the store on fire. Seven employees died in the inferno.
Al Sharpton has also shared a stage with gay-bashing, Jew-hating, anti-Catholic racist Khalid Muhammad and praised him as “an articulate and courageous brother."
Fellow conservatives, we don’t need such an individual to be associated with a candidate of ours. Besides for it disqualifying the campaign led against Obama, it brands us as hypocrites and portrays us as morally equivalent to liberals. Carefully vetting a candidate’s record is of extreme importance. Greater priority though should be given to the character of the individual.
Newt proudly referred to his partnership with Al Sharpton as the original “odd couple” and explained his actions with the “education comes before party” lines. Noble sounding indeed except that the left is notorious for having implemented and supported action which raised the bar for the teachers union bosses, not the bar of education. Obama wrongly stopped the DC school vouchers Scholarship Program which had greatly benefited minorities who were stuck in under-performing public schools.
The program had been economically smart since the government paid per voucher less than half of the price they currently spend for each child which is educated in a failing D.C. public schools Additionally, after the Department of Education researched eleven programs, they found that scholarship programs achieved the largest gains. Despite all these facts, Obama found it more important to curry favor with the teachers unions, and his Education Secretary, Duncan, revoked the scholarship of 216 students already on the program. Education “specialist” Al Sharpton who is usually the very first to protest any act with the slightest smell of racism, remained shockingly silent and did not utter a whimper in protest of Obama’s decision which hurt minorities most.
With the closure of the D.C. vouchers program, Obama’s, Duncan’s, and Sharpton’s true colors were exposed yet Gingrich agreed to join teams with these very same individuals in an effort to promote better education for minorities. It would be quite hilarious if the results wouldn’t be so pathetic. After meeting with Obama, Gingrich praised Obama’s stance on education. Throughout the tour, Gingrich didn’t find it necessary to question Sharpton for his inaction. Nor did he take to task Obama’s education Secretary Arne Duncan, who had joined them as a direct representative of Obama in their endeavor to publicly laud Obama’s efforts to reform public education.
Was Newt so stupid as to really think Obama, Duncan, and Sharpton are the type of people who would take positive action to help minorities stuck in failing public schools after their blatant disregard to the minorities in D.C.? Gingrich’s actions can be understood in one of two ways:
B-His quest to expand the Republican tent have often led to compromises and bipartisan acts which somehow amounted to conservatives giving in to Democrat demands. (See below)
Either way, his recent actions are in direct contradiction to the image he’s attempted to create of himself throughout his current campaign.
In addition to his lack of character, which unfortunately is no longer considered as a deciding factor for many, Newt’s record is far from unblemished. Since some of his actions are downright disturbing, here’s a handful of some of the Newt controversies, both well-known and lesser -- known.
Newt agreed with John Kerry regarding the urgency to take action to stop global warming and a need for "Green Conservatism." He also participated in a global warming ad created by Al Gore’s company, in which he sat one couch with Pelosi (and for which he apologized after having launched his presidential campaign.)
Newt’s firm received 1.6 million dollars from Freddie Mac for “consulting services” and another $312,000 from the ethanol lobby (which may explain his confusion regarding the myth of global warming.)
He had been the recipient of President Clinton heartfelt thanks for his support of The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which placed many restrictions on the 2nd Amendment Right and federalized certain crimes involving a firearm. This increased both the size and the scope of the Federal Government, and wouldn’t have passed without Gingrich.
Newt has endorsed moderate and questionable individuals such as Dede Scozzafava, an ACORN-friendly, union-pandering, tax-and-spend radical Republican who ran against a solid conservative, Doug Hoffman. Newt defended his endorsement of Scozzafava (before backtracking once she backed out of the race) saying that “If you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority” thus revealing his true colors and history of compromising with the left rather than sticking to one’s guns. Never mind that it wasn’t even applicable in this case since NY-23 is a Republican district.
Gingrich called Paul Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering” despite Ryan’s bravery in being the very first to actually present a plan (and for this too he later apologized after receiving heavy flak from conservatives.)
Newt Gingrich has been a member for the past twenty one years of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which has been single-minded and dedicated to the goal of undermining our National Sovereignty in order to promote a One World Government!
My sincerest apologies for any Newt apologies inadvertently not mentioned. They are slightly difficult to keep track of. One thing is certain though. He hasn’t apologized for his teaming up with the Obama team, Obama’s education secretary, and most importantly, Al Sharpton. In fact, he honored Al Sharpton on his new MSNBC show with a surprise happy birthday call this past October in which he cited the time they’ve worked together as memorable and unforgettable. He then heaped lavish praise upon Sharpton’s head including saying that Sharpton “did a lot of good things.” Newt correctly assumed conservatives and family members of Sharpton’s victims weren’t listening to the show, thus providing him with the opportunity to reveal his chumminess with Al Sharpton without receiving any heavy backlash.
Last June, Newt Gingrich gave a speech for the Maryland Republican party in which he said that one only needs the courage to enter and communicate with the African American communities as to how Obama’s policies have caused their unemployment figures to rise and have only hurt the black people.
Mr. Gingrich, although you’re above statement is true there’s an additional reason why black communities’ sufferings are worse than that of the rest of the country, and you are part of the problem. Black communities are hurting precisely because of rabble rousers like Al Sharpton whose entire career is built through the suppression of blacks. He ensures they remain victims in their minds forever so that they remain thankful and faithful to their masters who provide them with food stamps and other programs in exchange for votes. Instead of denouncing and decrying these despicable racists, you’ve teamed up with him and continue to praise, embolden, and encourage Al Sharpton. This further validates this criminal and hurts the African American communities to no end, as detailed in a past article I’ve written.
If you truly seek better education for minorities, denounce Al Sharpton. Additionally, recognize that The Department of Education which you’ve supported from the start and the ridiculous union demands are the main components why minorities suffer from worse educations. Therefore, your promotion of additional government control and federal spending are not only not the solution, but actually part of the problem.
Conservatives have always stood a notch above liberals since conservatives are individuals with character. Conservatism dare not stoop to the level of liberals for America simply cannot afford another characterless president. We’ve got to prove that our values are not for sale. Vehement opposition against Gingrich’s association with Sharpton is necessary in order to demonstrate the truth behind our support of the unaired McCain ad and our opposition of Obama’s troubling past. Perhaps if character would have been given stronger focus in 2008 we wouldn’t be stuck now with our current president. The clock can’t be turned back, but the future is still open and waiting to be molded.
When an individual or group of people have a goal they dream of reaching, once the hoped for is attained the focus shifts to the actual accomplishment while the rest fades to the background.
When the colonists were under British rule they dreamed of freedom and sovereignty. Before and during the Revolutionary War, they were entirely focused on overthrowing the British and gaining independence. Once the colonists emerged victorious and their dream a reality, their focus shifted. At a day to day basis the talk no longer revolved around their old hopes but at the new-found freedom and current challenges. Several decades and now centuries down the road haven’t erased the hopes, struggles, and victory; they will never be forgotten. Rather it is stored backstage to be brought out front on occasion such as on Independence Day.
It is now over close to 50 years after Martin Luther King delivered his renowned “I have a Dream” speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Why is his dream still stressed upon on a constant basis especially amongst Democrats and African American leaders and not its accomplishments? Why hasn’t it yet been relegated to backstage together with other historical speeches? Why has his dream not yet been actualized? Why do African Americans suffer from greater poverty, higher unemployment, and weaker education?
The left has put to power several shameful individuals who brainwash their base in the greatness of the Democrat Party and their generosity through government programs while demonizing the conservative movement as greedy uncaring racists. Breitbart.tv has recently put out two short videos; the first video features Al Sharpton on his new MSNBC show blaming racist segregationist Tea Partiers for wanting to return to the pre-1960’s while the second video has highlights of speeches of many members of the Congressional Black Caucus at jobs town hall meetings in five cities at which they spewed hatred towards the tea party and unabashedly used the race card to incite the attendees against conservatives. The CBC leaders used false violent rhetoric from the right such as tea party members wanting blacks hanging from trees, in order to condone their promotion of violence against the right.
The Democrat Party, the CBC, and Al Sharpton have crowned themselves as the leaders of the African American communities and as the only ones who care and fight for their needs. What accomplishments can they point to besides for digging many African Americans even deeper into the holes of entitlement and helplessness? Why not empower them to the point where they’ll be equal to all and that there shouldn’t be a need for a CBC? Aha – perhaps because they want to avoid precisely that since that would cause them to lose a considerable amount of their power, money, and standing they currently have at the expense of the black communities!
Al Sharpton and the CBC’s silence after Pelosi and the left went on a “civil rights” march proclaiming the passing of Obamacare as equal to the emancipation of slavery reveals their disconnect of the people they claim to represent. Where was the outrage? Do they find the tortures of slavery and the denial of basic rights every human should be entitled to as comparable to the “right” of free health care to the poor at the expense of those better off? What does this hint about Pelosi and the Democrats who have made this illogical comparison yet claim to be the party for the blacks? Come to think of it, what has Obama, the first black president, done for the African American community besides for creating policies which increased unemployment and dependency on government? Where are the marches of protest led by Al Sharpton against the elimination of school choice in D.C. by Obama despite it having been proven to raise the educational level of local African American children?
This obvious hypocrisy can easily be understood when looking back at one incident with the opposite responses of two individuals.
Twenty years ago in Crown Heights, NY a Jewish driver struck a car, swerved onto the sidewalk and hit an African American child, Gavin Cato. The neighborhood at the time had a considerable population of both Jews and blacks and many hotheaded African American teenagers took to the Jewish neighborhoods, vandalizing Jewish property and attacking Jews. While many responded civilly, others including many who were bussed in rioted for three full days beating and plundering left and right.
The father of the dead child, Carmel Cato although deeply pained, declared he had no bad feelings against the driver in particular and Jews in general. Despite his depth of character, he was never named by the media or Democrat party who claim to represent the black population as a civil rights leader who builds relationships between communities. Nor was he crowned as a spokesperson of the black community, or offered to host a TV show.
Al Sharpton joined the scene and further incited the rioters with his focus on race and “peace” marches blasting the Jewish people using anti-Semitic slurs and chanting “no justice, no peace.” Why is it that Al Sharpton, who will use every opportunity he could think of to remind African Americans of their skin color and not of their character, is considered by the left and the media as the spokesperson for the African American community and a civil rights leader who builds relationships between communities? What has made him worthy to recently receive a show to host on MSNBC?
I’m an employee in a retail shop and meet many great people including hardworking African Americans whom I greatly respect for their honorable character and intelligence. Why aren’t any of them or their likes representing their communities in congress? Why is it that the only two African American’s currently serving in congress which were voted into office by a mostly white district are conservative Republicans, and the voters conservatives?
Allen West and Tim Scott, the two Republican African Americans and many other conservative African Americans face heat from the so-called “true” African-American leaders for rejecting their people. How wrong! They should be the ultimate example to their fellow African Americans as to where hard work can take you no matter your skin color! Jesse Jackson and the other CBC members mainly represent districts heavily populated by African Americans who voted for them based on their skin color. Allen West and Tim Scott were elected because of their achievements without a second glance at their skin color. Democrats are known to divide the nation into blocs based on their ethnicity, economic position, etc. in order to unite them against each other and receive their votes. Republicans look at each individual for who they are, what they stand for, what they’ve accomplished, and plan to accomplish in the future.
Martin Luther King had a dream; that people should be valued according to character and not color. The conservative movement has actualized the dream, thus not finding it necessary to constantly mention the dream, the same way they don’t constantly stress on other former dreams such as having been British colonists yearning for freedom. On the other hand, Democrats continually harp on the dream, hoping it should remain forever a dream.
Hopefully after the shameful actions of the Obama administration, the CBC, and other African American leaders are exposed for what they truly are, the African American communities will recognize the truths, abandon their victim status, reach greater heights and watch Martin Luther King’s dream finally being actualized.
The Crown Heights riots in New York of August 1991 which was instigated by Al Sharpton was reported in the New York Times and the rest of the media pretty much the same way they cover the news today; a refusal to report anything negative against the left.
For most of you following the media’s bias the following no longer comes as a surprise.
Twenty years after the riots former Times reporter Ari Goldman wrote a personal narrative in The Jewish Week about the cover-up and distortions of the New York Times at that time.
Twenty years ago next week, on the night of Aug. 19, 1991 — the night that Gavin Cato and Yankel Rosenbaum were killed — my editor called me at home to tell me that riots had broken out on the streets of Crown Heights. “We’re covered for tonight but I want you to start your day there tomorrow,” he said.
Over the next three days, working 12 hours shifts and only going home to sleep, I saw and heard many terrible things. I saw police cars set on fire, stores being looted and people bloodied by Billy clubs, rocks and bottles. One woman told me that she barricaded herself into her apartment and put the mattresses on the windows so her children would not be hurt by flying glass.
Over those three days I also saw journalism go terribly wrong. The city’s newspapers, so dedicated to telling both sides of the story in the name of objectivity and balance, often missed what was really going on. Journalists initially framed the story as a “racial” conflict and failed to see the anti-Semitism inherent in the riots. As the 20th anniversary of the riots approaches, I find myself re-examining my own role in the coverage and trying to extract some lessons for myself and my profession.
At the time, I was a religion writer at The New York Times and was well connected in the Lubavitch community, the predominant Jewish group in Crown Heights. I was one of probably a dozen Times reporters and photographers on the streets over the course of the riots. We were a diverse group, representing many religions and racial backgrounds.
My job was to file memos to the main “rewrite” reporters back in the Times office in Manhattan about what I saw and heard. We had no laptops or cellphones in those days so the other reporters and I went to payphones and dictated our memos to a waiting band of stenographers in the home office. The photographers handed their film off to couriers on motorcycles who took the film to the Times.
Yet, when I picked up the paper, the article I read was not the story I had reported. I saw headlines that described the riots in terms solely of race. “Two Deaths Ignite Racial Clash in Tense Brooklyn Neighborhood,” the Times headline said. And, worse, I read an opening paragraph, what journalists call a “lead,” that was simply untrue:
“Hasidim and blacks clashed in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn through the day and into the night yesterday.”
In all my reporting during the riots I never saw — or heard of — any violence by Jews against blacks. But the Times was dedicated to this version of events: blacks and Jews clashing amid racial tensions. To show Jewish culpability in the riots, the paper even ran a picture — laughable even at the time — of a chasidic man brandishing an open umbrella before a police officer in riot gear. The caption read: “A police officer scuffling with a Hasidic man yesterday on President Street.”
I was outraged but I held my tongue. I was a loyal Times employee and deferred to my editors. I figured that other reporters on the streets were witnessing parts of the story I was not seeing.
But then I reached my breaking point. On Aug. 21, as I stood in a group of chasidic men in front of the Lubavitch headquarters, a group of demonstrators were coming down Eastern Parkway. “Heil Hitler,” they chanted. “Death to the Jews.”
Police in riot gear stood nearby but did nothing.
Suddenly rocks and bottles started to fly toward us and a chasidic man just a few feet away from me was hit in the throat and fell to the ground. Some ran to help the injured man but most of us ran for cover. I ran for a payphone and, my hands shaking with rage, dialed my editor. I spoke in a way that I never had before or since when talking to a boss.
“You don’t know what’s happening here!” I yelled. “I am on the streets getting attacked. Someone next to me just got hit. I am writing memos and what comes out in the paper? ‘Hasidim and blacks clashed’? That’s not what is happening here. Jews are being attacked! You’ve got this story all wrong. All wrong.”
I didn’t blame the “rewrite” reporter. I blamed the editors. It was clear that they had settled on a “frame” for the story. The way they saw it, there were two narratives here: the white narrative and the black narrative. And both had equal weight.
After my outburst things got a little better. The next day’s report began like this: “Black youths hurling rocks and bottles scuffled with the police in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn last night, even as Mayor David N. Dinkins tried to personally calm the racially troubled neighborhood after two nights of violence.”
But the Times still had trouble changing its frame. Perhaps most troubling was an article written in the midst of the rioting under this headline: “Amid Distrust in Brooklyn: Boy and Scholar Fall Victim.” The article compared the life of Gavin Cato, the 7-year-old boy killed in the car accident that spurred the riots, and the life of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, who was stabbed to death later that night. It recycled every newspaper cliché and was an insult to the memory of both victims, but, again, it fit the frame.
“They did not know each other,” the article said. “They had no reason to know… They died unaware….” In the eyes of the Times, the deaths were morally equivalent and had equal weight.
The Times editorial page followed suit. “The violence following an auto accident in Crown Heights reminds all New Yorkers that the city’s race relations remains dangerously strained,” the editorial said. It concluded by praising Mayor Dinkins, giving him credit “for a hard night’s work” and doing “the job that New Yorkers elected him to do.”
The one who first broke the frame and spoke the truth was the fearless poet of the New York newspaper business in those days, Jimmy Breslin, then a columnist for Newsday. He was one of numerous reporters, photographers and television journalists who were beaten or otherwise injured during the riots. In Breslin’s case, he was dragged from a taxi by a group of rampaging young men, pummeled and stripped of his clothes. That night, he vowed to tell the truth of his humiliation, although he anticipated the resistance. “And someone up in the higher echelons of journalism, some moron starts talking about balanced coverage,” he said.
The other person who spoke the truth was the brilliant former executive editor of the Times, A.M. Rosenthal, who by 1991 had become a columnist for the paper. Rosenthal was one of the first journalists at the Times to call the riots what they were. “Pogrom in Brooklyn,” was the headline of his column on Sept. 3, 1991, just two weeks after the riots ended.
“The press,” Rosenthal wrote, “treats it all as some kind of cultural clash between a poverty-ridden people fed up with life and a powerful, prosperous and unfortunately peculiar bunch of stuck-up neighbors — very sad of course, but certainly understandable. No — it is an anti-Semitic pogrom and the words should not be left unsaid.”
It pains me to recall that not many people at the Times took Rosenthal seriously at the time. He had gone from being the editor of a great “liberal” newspaper to being a “conservative” columnist who seemed to return to the same issues over and over again: the security of Israel, anti-Semitism, the persecution of Christians in China and the war on drugs.
But Rosenthal was right about Crown Heights. In 1993, two years after the Crown Heights riots, an exhaustive state investigation sharply criticized Mayor Dinkins for not understanding the severity of the crisis. It also faulted his police commissioner, Lee Brown, for mismanaging the police during the riots.
The critical state report was widely covered in the press. “For the Mayor,” the Times headline said, “A Harsh Light.”
But another report, this one on how the press covered Crown Heights, got little publicity. It was written in 1999 by Carol B. Conaway, then an assistant professor at the College of Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., and published in an academic journal called Polity. Her article is called “Crown Heights: Politics and Press Coverage of the Race War That Wasn’t.”
“Journalists and their audience alike rely on ‘frames’ when writing about and understanding newsworthy events because they provide cues for understanding others’ experiences,” Conaway wrote. But, she added, sometimes the frames are wrong.
She continued: “The New York Post, a tabloid, shifted away from the race frame to focus on black anti-Semitism within a few days of the initial rampages, while the New York Times persisted with the racial frame for at least two years.
“Yet,” she added, “one cannot understand the events [that unfolded in Crown Heights] without getting beyond the binaries of black versus white encouraged by the use of the race frame, and understanding the more complex dynamics of the conflict.”
As someone who saw the conflict unfold I can attest to this first-hand. I am telling my story in print for the first time because it is important that we journalists examine our mistakes and learn from them. Fitting stories into frames — whether about blacks and Jews, liberals or conservatives, Arabs and Israelis, Catholics and Protestants or Muslims and Jews — is wrong and even dangerous. Life is more complicated than that. And so is journalism.
