Staff Reports
In a bizarre twist of political irony, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has hopped onto the Dems’ bandwagon, hurling barbs at Donald Trump for allegedly depending on Elon Musk. The same governor, however, seems to have a different standard when it comes to making important decisions about the Big Apple’s leadership. When it came time to ponder the fate of Mayor Eric Adams, Hochul’s go-to advisor was none other than the controversial Rev. Al Sharpton. That’s right; when looking for a voice of reason, she turned to a man known more for his flamboyant rhetoric than any semblance of rational leadership.
Hochul’s criticism of Trump’s reliance on Musk stems from the tech mogul’s influence in various spheres, including social media. It seems the governor believes that leaning on a billionaire renders one vulnerable to the whims of the tech elite. Ironically, this critique raises eyebrows considering Hochul’s own appointed special advisor. Choosing Sharpton to weigh in on whether Adams deserves to stay in office is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse. In recent years, Sharpton has gained fame (or infamy) for his divisive tactics and inflammatory comments, leaving many to wonder why Hochul thought he was the perfect choice when deciding the path forward for city leadership.
Kathy Hochul bashes Elon Musk — but then taps Al Sharpton for advice https://t.co/v15bHZrfkm pic.twitter.com/2fMFSP784x
— NY Post Opinion (@NYPostOpinion) February 20, 2025
This reliance on Sharpton isn’t just puzzling; it’s downright hypocritical. Democrats like Hochul are quick to point fingers at others while comfortably ensconced in their own double standards. On one hand, she insists that Trump is wrong for using Musk, while on the other, she’s more than willing to utilize the dubious guidance of a man who has historically been less than unifying. It’s almost comical—if it weren’t so serious—that Hochul weighs the mayor’s future heavily in Sharpton’s hands, a man with a colorful history of controversy.
The irony thickens when one considers that Hochul portrays herself as a leader focused on unity and progress. Yet, embracing Sharpton as an advisor seems like an odd choice if the intent is to foster harmony within the diverse communities of New York City. It’s reminiscent of watering a garden with gasoline and then wondering why all the flowers are withering. Hochul can preach coexistence and appreciation all she wants, but sticking her fingers in the often toxic stew of Sharpton’s past undermines any pitch for bipartisanship.
New Yorkers must be shaking their heads, flipping between episodes of political theater and what feels like a poorly scripted reality show. Hochul’s choice, driven by party loyalty and a penchant for celebrity over substance, highlights the absurdity of modern politics. In a world where relying on a billionaire is viewed as treacherous while entrusting one’s judgment to Sharpton is seemingly reasonable, one can only ponder the logic—or lack thereof—when Democrats choose their champions and allies.
