Apparently, it constitutes race baiting to mention Al Sharpton when criticizing the boycott of Arizona, according to Kevin Johnson, at ImmigrationProf Blog:

The website mentioned in Palin’s message includes the following “defense” of Arizona:

“instead of taking action to help, the state has come under attack by people who are misrepresenting Arizona’s laws and trying to hurt our efforts to support the rule of law. They include President Obama, Al Sharpton, the East Coast media, and political strategists who are trying to use the issue of illegal immigration for political gain.”

I wonder why Reverend Sharpton is listed with President Obama as one of the troublemakers for Arizona, as opposed to say, Senator Lindsay Graham and Tom Tancredo, two conservatives who have questioned the law?

Can you spell R-A-C-E B-A-I-T-I-N-G?

Yes, I can spell it, but you still don’t know what you are talking about.

Maybe, just maybe, Sharpton is mentioned because he is leading boycott efforts against Arizona, whereas Graham and Tancredo are not:

“I do support a boycott,” [Sharpton] said. “Because I think it would be wrong to help to finance and subsidize racism. And that’s what would happen if this bill goes into effect. I intend tonight at the rally to say that the next rally that I participate in will be in front of the Major League Baseball offices asking Commissioner Selig that they not bring the All-Star Game here [in 2011].”

Is it possible that Sharpton’s conduct, not his skin color, was the reason he was mentioned? Is it R-A-C-E B-A-I-T-I-N-G for me to point to facts?

And what irony, to claim that criticizing one of the most prolific race baiters “since the Great Depression,” itself constitutes race baiting.

Related Posts:
Al Sharpton for NFL Commissioner
I Thought We Were Supposed To Be Boycotting California
Do NOT Read This Supreme Court Decision

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Bookmark and Share