One wonders how much support Black Republican candidates get from the NAACP. Might be interesting to look into that some time. In the meantime though we have this from MSNBC. From the article....



I wonder if any of these candidates will get the endorsement of the NAACP...

No, the NAACP isn't the only game in town in reaching out to blacks, but you should recognize that the NAACP is still one of the most respected organizations representing blacks. That doesn't mean Bush can't make a end-run around the NAACP and bypass them entirely. Just don't kid yourself that his motives in doing so aren't clear for all to see.

There were alternatives to dealing with Martin Luther King when he irked the Johnson Administration with his criticism of the Vietnam War. Whitney Young of the National Urban League and Roy Wilkins of the NAACP found their phone calls being returned sooner than King. But like it or not, the NAACP still possesses a higher profile and standing than the Urban League and Marc Morial is less well-known than Julian Bond and Kweisi Mfume.

You'll have to explain to me Amlord how exactly it is only the NAACP suffers harm by criticizing Bush and the Republicans. I think the NAACP leadership knows exactly what they are doing. Just as Bush has determined he will suffer no serious harm to his image and reelection by snubbing the NAACP, they don't fear that a president who governs with less-than-universal acclaim and adulation can do them harm either. To the extent that the lie is given to Bush's claim of being a "uniter, not a divider" and a compassionate conservative, his image takes a hit from this squabble, particuarly among independents discomforted by the politics of racial polarization.

I disagree that the the NAACP has excused itself from the table. It just could be that they aren't interested in the crumbs brushed off the table. When you aren't being treated as an equal at the table it strikes me as only a natural reaction to become "belligerent" and turning over the table if necessary.

As regards your last paragraph, Amlord, if you change "The NAACP" to "The GOP" and leave everything else the same, you would be summing up my feelings about the race problem the Republicans face quite nicely.

Would that be the 2000 visit to BJU which occurred in the same election that he made stop at the NAACP? Did I miss the stop this year? What does this strawman have to do with the NAACP and Bush?

Bush is not "hostile to the idea of equality for all". He has different ideas than you do, which to you makes him a racist. A spectacularly fallacious argument.

What did Bond say about Bush at this year's convention?



Bond makes this statement despite the fact that Pickering is liked by blacks in Mississippi, Despite the facts of the case in the infamous cross burning case. The Cross Burning Case: What Really Happened Despite the fact that hate crimes are hard to prove and arguably un-Constitutional.

What's amazing : Bond thinks Bush will "repeal the 14th Amendment" Now the guy is simply crossed the line into idiocy.


Do I detect some animus between the NAACP and the Urban League?


Despite the evidence, Bond cannot let Florida 2000 go. Apparently he blames Bush (not yet President) for the lack of support in the Senate (which still contains some Democrats, does it not?).


Pure, unadulterated race baiting. I wouldn't speak in front of this man, either.

I fail to see how actively campaigning for the bigot vote in 2000 and refusing to apologize is a strawman when we are discussing the administration's position on race relations.
I beg to differ. Campaigning on a promise to enshrine second class citizenship for a segment of the population in the constitution is the epitome of being hostile to the idea of equality for all.

1. Do you believe that Bush is deliberately snubbing the NAACP? Why or why not?

Yes. Almost all Presidents meet with this group while in office. Bush is basically saying that because the association criticized him he will not meet with them. Be serious Bush, everyone has criticized you. By declining their invitation he is practically slapping them in the face, saying he doesn't believe in what they stand for.

2. Will this move by the Bush campaign have an effect on the election this November?

Unfortunately, probably not. Most people that are planning to not vote for Bush already have enough reasons not to vote for him and the people that are voting for him are going to say he was right in snubbing the NAACP or that he was too busy... Fence sitters probably don't see this as a major issue and will look at other things to decide.

The NAACP is no longer the organization it was. It used to get universal respect, but now? Now it's a highly partisan Democrat-only, liberal and left radical-only organization, and its leader has spoken of the President and of Republicans in general in the most harshly critical Michael Moore-like extreme language, far beyond the bounds of civility. If Bush gave this group anything but the back of his hand after that without first receiving a formal apology, he'd be perceived as a doormat, and rightly so. It's time to consign the NAACP to the ash heap of history and work with less bitterly partisan organizations instead.

"...highly partisan, Democrat-only, liberal and left-radical-only organization."

"...far beyond the bounds of civility."

"consign to the ash heap of history"

"bitterly partisan organization"

If rhetoric were bullets the NAACP would be dead now and that apparently suits some people just fine.

It always is a source of bemusement to me when conservatives attack civil rights groups for their confrontational, aggressive and activist rhetoric and policies. How do they think real and systemic social change occurs? Over tea and finger cakes?

The regressive and reactionary assault from the Right against the NAACP is ample proof that the need for the organization still exists and their work is not done.

NT, I normally respect 99% of your posts, but this one has me befuddled. How do the statements that you quoted from other posters translate into ample proof that the need for the organization still exists and their work is not done?
Are they racist in nature? I think not. How is calling a blatantly partisan non-partisan organization what it is, reactionary and regressive?
This, the non-partisan organization that suspended Paul C. Gillis as president of the association's Suffolk, Va., branch after he endorsed Republican George F. Allen for the U.S. Senate.
Speaking to this crowd is akin to going to Boston next week and speaking before thousands of Dems at their convention. Why all of the feigned uproar from Dems and the NAACP? So Bush took a stand and decided not to pander to this once highly respected group.
They know who they are, and what they are, and I'm not buying what they're selling.

Grendel72, Can you explain what you mean by this? You've re-stated it a few different ways and I can't figure it out. Who is 'enshrining second class citizenship' for whom and how?

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to be so vague.
I'm talking about President Bush's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment under it's various guises. The president unambiguously supported an amendment which would serve no purpose other than to permanently deny something that the Supreme Court has called one of the basic rights of man from a subset of the populace. This is not the action of someone who believes in equality for all.

I mentioned earlier that I had considered voting for Bush in 2000, and was turned off by his campaigning at Bob Jones University. My fears turned out to be justified when Bush promoted discrimination against a group I do belong to- something for all of us to keep in mind, civil rights affect us all and just because we don't happen to belong to the group currently under attack is no guarantee that we won't be next.

I have heard this sentiment repeated numerous times, and I think we should all dispense with saying the NAACP "doesn't do anything" anymore, so why are they around.

From their history timeline:


The important thing in there in my opinion is voter turnout, although TV diversity is a good thing too. The largest black voter turnout in 20 years occurred in 2000, but you know what? In every single category, the turnout was still less than caucasian groups of the same age group (source).


As you can see there is quite a disparity there. Now I'm not African American, but it is my understanding that the NAACP's biggest focus has been on voter registration and getting people to vote in recent years. The numbers prove that is still a problem, and their accomplishment in 2000 proves that they are at the very least helping the situation.


And how is this different than when presidents spoke with them during the civil rights era or even during the 70's and 80's? I have stated numerous times that historically presidents have been under much more pressure than Bush ever has from this group. We don't have the luxury of pulling quotes from the 1950's but I'm sure some things were said back then to that equal these statements in sentiment.

The uproar is because this president, more than any president in the last 20 years probably cares the least about civil rights.

So has the reason for Bush speaking to the NAACP boiled down to "everybody else did it"?
Just as many people would claim that the two major parties have switched gears over the last few decades, isn't it equally possible that a once respected civil rights group has devolved into a partisan organization?
Going back to NT's statement about the NAACP still needing to exist, Bond, Mfume and company have a seat at the Democrat table. they will do and say anything to keep that seat. I don't believe the day will ever come when someone will turn out the lights at NAACP HQ and say 'our work here is done, time to lock up'. There is too much money and power to be attained and maintained in the business of race. They are sadly, accustomed to being pandered to, and raise holy hell when they're not. Remember the groveling apology-fest by the Dem candidates during the primaries when some didn't make an appearance?

The NAACP has a proud history, but it's leadership has devolved into a lunatic wing of the left.

I will speak for myself in response to your post.

I understand fully what the NAACP has done for me, NOTHING!!! My comments were specifically toward the NAACP, so I do not understand why you mentioned other civil rights organizations. But let me tell you who has done a lot for me in my life, The people who love me and gave me the knowledge to develop my own beliefs and represent myself and not let others speak for me. Do I need to be associated with any civil rights organization to be a black American? Where are the requirements?

Sure I'm thankful for the civil rights movement, but all my praise and glory goes to God. He made it possible!!





No, the question is who does the NAACP represent besides rich black Americans?
Growing up in the hood, I can't remember the NAACP inviting me or anybody I knew to any event. They should rename it the NAARCP (National Association for the Advancement of Rich Colored People) .

That's not how I choose to look at it dontreadonme, but your comment:

leads me to believe that you think Bush was justified in snubbing them simply because he didn't like them.

I have made the point (which is still unanswered right now) that historically there have been presidents that liked the NAACP far less, yet they still met with them and heard out their grievances. My argument isn't an "everybody else has done it" argument. I'm saying that disliking the group is not a valid reason for refusing to meet with them. Neither is "name calling". As history demonstrates, things have been much worse between the government and the NAACP in the past.


I think you have it backwards DT. The NAACP doesn't need the Democratic party, the Democratic party needs them. I think that the history (even recent history) shows that the NAACP has the interests of the black community at heart and they will ally with the people that best serve those interests. However, having grievances with the sitting administration is completely valid and not unprecedented.

So let me get this straight, cgorham: The NAACP has done nothing, nada, zip, zero that has benefited you in any way, shape or form. The NAACP is only interested in the affairs of the black bourgeoise. The NAACP only exists to perpetuate their own existence and better that of rich colored folks.

That about right?

Maybe the NAACP hasn't done anything that personally benefited you cgorham. Maybe if the NAACP closed up tomorrow and disappeared into history it would have zero-minus-zero impact upon your life or your loved ones. Maybe you're right.

And maybe not.

Unless you wanted to attend only segregated public schools the NAACP did something that you benefited you. Rosa Parks, a NAACP member, did something that benefited you. NAACP Field Director Medgar Evers did something that benefited you. Unless you wanted to see Robert Bork on the Supreme Court and David Duke in the U.S. Senate, by demonstrating against them, the NAACP did something that benefited you. Unless you think that silently accepting racism and prejudice is preferable to peaceful demonstration, fighting for legislation, protest, negotiation and working within the American judicial and legislative system to bring about social change is a waste of time the NAACP has definitely done something that benefited you.

If you can look at the NAACP's timeline and find not one thing that had a positive effect on your life, then Congratulations! You are truly a rare and unique African-American.

http://www.naacp.org/past_future/naacptimeline.shtml

Or you're just living in a different America than the one I live in.

You don't have to be grateful or appreciative, cgorham and you can give God his glory, but save a little bit for His messengers here on Earth.

Dontreadonme, it is sadly apparent to me that we just have a fundamental disagreement on the need and viability of the 2004-version of the NAACP. If the NAACP has abandoned all pretense of being non-partisan and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party that is wrong. If the NAACP would rather back a bad Democrat instead of a good Republican (regardless of the candidate's race) that is also wrong.

I understand that there are those who think the NAACP's time has come and gone and its mission accomplished. I'm not a member of the organization, primarily because I think it's too beholden to the corporations and other organizations that provide the NAACP's funding.

However, while I prefer negotiation to confrontation, I would never take the option of blunt talk and peaceful protest off the table. It would be nice to think that President Bush would respond better to the NAACP if its leadership wouldn't say such terrible things about him. But Bush sang a different tune in 2000 when he did go before the NAACP:

"While some in my party have avoided the NAACP, and while some in the NAACP have avoided my party, I am proud to be here today."

Fast forward four years later and all that "compassionate conservative" and "I'm a uniter, not a divider" rhetoric is deader than disco. In 2000, Bush needed to sell moderates and swing voters on the notion that he was a different kind of Republican. In 2004, it's all about firing up the base and wedge issues are in style. Bush now is going to cherry-pick which black people he thinks are nice and punish those he thinks are naughty.

, “Our nation must make a new commitment to equality and upward mobility for all its citizens. We cannot afford to have an America segregated by class, race, or by aspiration.”

Bush said that in 2000 and maybe he believed it then. In 2004, it's obvious that he was less than sincere.

Rather than start another thread, I thought I'd update this one with the fact that the President spoke to the National Urban League today.

Guess what? I like some of the things he had to say:

DETROIT - President Bush acknowledged on Friday that “the Republican Party has got a lot of work to do” to gain the support of black voters and suggested that the Democratic Party is taking them for granted.

“I know plenty of politicians assume they have your vote,” the president told the National Urban League. “But do they earn it and do they deserve it?”


“Has class warfare or higher taxes ever created decent jobs in the inner city?” Bush asked. “Are you satisfied with the same answers on crime, excuses for drugs and blindness to the problem of the family?”

He invited blacks to “take a look at my agenda” of boosting small businesses, demanding high standards in the nation’s public schools and defending “the institutions of marriage and family.”

He proposed an initiative that seeks to expand business ownership among minorities by creating one-stop centers for business training, counseling, financing and contracting.

“Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party?” the president asked. “How is it possible to gain political leverage if the party is never forced to compete?”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5496640/

I don't know who wrote Bush's speech, but he definitely came out on the offensive.

I sincerely hope this means Bush is not going to write off the black vote in 2004. It's doubtful that he can improve very much on the percentage he got in 2000, but at the very least he should make Kerry work to get what he assumes is his by default.

For those wondering what kind of black man would support this administration, I present an interview with the director of Project 21, described as the conservative voice of African-Americans.

For those unable to play the video, it is notable that the director of this group is a white man. I'm sure, though, that "conservative African-American groups" truly represent the views of the group they claim to represent.

My thought is:

Is he snubbing them? Sort of. I understand. Why go be insulted, again? These people have been saying unbelievably horrible things about him (_literally_ unbelievably, as in, nobody could believe what they're saying).

OTOH Orson Scott Card (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-07-11-1.html) has a good point about this: it's still a stage for a speech, and many blacks may be offended by a snub to the NAACP (?). He should go and remind them how their leaders lied to them about what a Bush presidency would mean for them -- and point out that being a guaranteed Democrat constituency is not in their interest. Sounds like a plan to me.

Dubya's minority outreach continues and forced Kerry to readjust his plans as well:

Largest-ever Gathering of Minority Journalists Attracts Bush, Kerry

By Mark Fitzgerald

Published: August 03, 2004 12:01 AM EST

NEW YORK President George W. Bush didn't speak at this year's NAACP convention, but he is making time to talk to the record number of minority journalists gathering in Washington this week for the Unity 2004 convention.

Perhaps spurred by the Bush appearance scheduled for Friday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who first said his schedule would not permit an appearance, will be at Unity Thursday morning. Both have agreed not just to speak, but to take questions.

The addition of both presidential candidates to a roster of speakers that already included such high-powered figures as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Time Warner Chairman and CEO Richard D. Parsons speaks to the increasing clout and visibility of this largest-ever meeting of journalists of color.

Unity, first held in Atlanta in 1994, is the joint convention held every five years by the four principal minority journalist groups: the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA), and the Native American Journalists Association (NAJA). Unity begins Tuesday night with a "town hall" discussion about multiculturalism in entertainment that is open to the public. It formally kicks off Wednesday and runs through Saturday.

By last week, 6,930 delegates had already registered for the meeting, Unity said. Of those, 2,656, or about 40% of the total, are members of Unity's biggest coalition partner, NABJ.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1000591460

I'm eating my heart out because I was at the initial Unity gathering in Atlanta. I drove down from Columbus to Atlanta and stayed at a friend's home. It was great to find so many talented journalists of color coming together.

When you can get both major party Presidential candidates to address your convention, you know it's a election year and a tight race. They're going to have a wonderful time. Wish I was there.

Now that could be a very interesting convention. It really tells me two things:
- Bush has realized he is marginalizing an important sector of the vote and is trying to make in my opinion hollow amends for inaction for the past 4 years.
- Kerry has realized he can't take this sector of the vote for granted and is trying to reassure minorities that the Democratic party still supports them which also in my opinion somewhat of a hollow gesture.

This really says a lot about what a close race this is going to be. I really hope that these journalists give both men a good grilling on the issues.

Admittedly this thread is a little bit stale, but I thought this new story was still relevant to the original questions (and the election isn't over) and might generate some new discussion.

Apparently the IRS will be investigating the NAACP for "improperly intervening in a Presidential campaign".



The NAACP is accusing Bush of using the IRS as a surrogate hitman basically. I think there are two sides to the story, but I think this is still relevant to the initial questions for debate. The NAACP will likely be very vocal about this in the coming days, so you have to wonder what impact it will have on their members and on African Americans in general if they can successfully sell the message that they are being treated unfairly.

I don't claim to be an expert on non-profit tax law. However, Mfume claiming that he's being treated 'unfairly' is going to ring hollow on a lot of ears. Following are some of the NAACP's non-partisan comments.

CBS News - Dem hopefuls

And of course it's nothing new and has been going on for years...

NAACP tax status questioned (2001)


I'm sure that there are tax-exempt conservative organizations that flaunt the law as well, and I'd support more scrutiny all around. If the NAACP is going to keep its tax-exempt status, they ought to be required to do a little more reporting. The reporting standards seem too lax.

Let me make a few qualifying statements prior to these answers, in that they are integral in showing legitimacy in my claims:
- I am a Marine reservist, and the USMC is flush with as many or more minorities than any other American institution, except the Army.
- I am originally from Shreveport, Louisiana. This town has one of the highest minority contents in the nation, much less the South.
- My father is a retired Army officer, and I lived a large portion of my youth on Military bases, which often times has a large minority demographic.

1. I do believe that Bush is deliberately snubbing the NAACP, and rightfully so. The NAACP only suspended Alcorn once the story hit national news. Immediately after his anti-Bush (and anti-semetic) statements there was no recourse. The head of the NAACP, Mfume, also even admitted that Mr. Bush's reasons for being there were no legitimate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1171378/posts

The President, more than likely, would only get a small portion of the black vote anyway. Hispanics are the swing voters and most likely to vote for a republican. With that being said, why put himself in a hostile environment with little chance of gain?

2. An effect on the election? Highly unlikely. The fact of the matter is that regardless of genuine political stance, the black community tends to see themselves as not identifying with conservatives (even though this is often not true). The overwhelming majority of black Americans see themselves as democrats, regardless of how their values genuinely set.

Mr. Bush not going to the NAACP made a statement that was very substantial. It blatently says that the GOP isn't going to need the NAACP endorsement, and that we won't stand for anti-republican sentiment.

My reference to my Marine Corps commission is important in that I understand the fact that many (if not most) Marines support GW, even against their neighbors' and families' will. Being from Shreveport has given me a stark understanding of minority politics and motivations for voting.

I believe that the black vote and the minority voice is extremely important. However, I believe that the NAACP is not.