Bush Criticizes NAACP's Leadership


Based on this article it appears that Bush has clearly decided to snub this powerful and respected group and not only that -- he planned it well in advance. The date/location for the NAACP has likely been set for almost a year, and Bush probably planned this bus trip a few weeks/months ago.



Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that Bush is deliberately snubing the NAACP? Why or why not?

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

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

I believe that the Bush administration is blowing off the NAACP. I think this is a medium bad move. He will pick up some votes by attacking an organization that is often seen as too far left of center by more conservative Americans. I don't really know if left of center is the right term, I think, like unions, the NAACP has become seen as being too pushy for African American related issues and not really playing politics to accomplish things. (Vague I know). This may pick up voters from the independent right that would not normally vote, but I think the middle of America, while not always supporting the NAACP, thinks that it is a group that should be given a certain amount of respect.

I think the Bush administration, more so than other presidencies, plays tit for tat politics. Instead of wooing and courting elements to come to their side I think the sword or hammer is used against the groups that don't come around to their side of the issues. The NAACP and California being two examples (at least pre-Arnold)



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

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

Well, I think "snubbing" is the wrong word. What he has done is decline an invitation to be humiliated by a group who would have most certainly heckled and booed him, thus disallowing the Kerry campaign to use the video footage as a political tool.

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

Not one iota. Members of the NAACP will most decidedly vote Democratic whether or not Bush attended this function. Bush has been visiting black churches and they seem to warmly welcome his message.



But the NAACP was so wrong.

Under One Florida, more minority students are taking 10th grade pre-college tests, more minority students are taking college entrance exams and more minority students are taking Advanced Placement courses and receiving college credit. And, under this program, more minority students - 2,000 more since One Florida began - are now entering college.

Among freshman, 37.3 percent are minority students, compared with 35.6 percent in 1998. There are 1,716 more freshmen in 2003 than in 2002, 827 or 48.2 percent of whom are African American or Hispanic. At the University of Florida, minority enrollment among freshmen increased from 25.9 percent in 1998 to 30.5 in 2003. For the first time since tracking these figures began, the percent of minority freshman enrollment has topped 37 percent of the entering class of the State University System.

… spending with certified minority businesses, has increased by 287 percent, increasing from $151 million in FY99 to $583 million in FY03.

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

Why would Bush snub a group that said at last year's convention:



Equating the Republicans with Nazis is "non-partisan"?

Bond wasn't quite finished though:

Julian Bond sees GOP with 'dark underside'

Let's remember, these guys are non-partisan.

Would you "snub" a group who calls you a Nazi?

Remember, Bush spoke at the 2000 NAACP convention while he was a candidate:
Bush Heckled at NAACP Convention

His actual speech was met with "polite applause".

2. Will this move by the Bush campaign have an effect on the election this November?
I don't think so. Bush won a paltry 8% of the black vote in 2000. His May poll numbers show him sitting a 6% of black voters.

Despite Kerry campaign being practically devoid of minorities and Kerry spending very little money on the minority vote, he has a huge advantage in the demographic.

Juan Williams had an interesting take on Bush courting the black vote: Bush Shouldn't Write Off the Black Vote


I think he is courting the black vote, he is just not courting the NAACP vote.
The NAACP is opposed to school vouchers despite 66% of blacks being for them. The NAACP is a liberal organization and as Beladonna pointed out, there is no need to give Kerry a sound bite of Bush being heckled and ridiculed.

1. Do you believe that Bush is deliberately snubbing the NAACP? Why or why not?
Yes, the snub is deliberate. Bush, or rather his advisors, believe he has no chance of receiving their support so choose to ignore them. It's Bob Jones University all over again.

2. Will this move by the Bush campaign have an effect on the election this November?
Probably not, the mainstream media will ignore this and treat it as a non-issue. Again, just like Bob Jones University.

I don't think Bush is making a bad choice here. The NAACP would certainly not treat him very respectfully. IMO the NAACP has become a power unto itself and no longer exists for anything but itself. I think they're horribly out of touch with their own and any democrat who doesn't see this does so at their own peril.
I think the NAACP may be in for a suprise of their own in the next few years as they begin to lose influence among the younger generation of blacks.
They are openly hostile to him and why would anyone give their opponents that kinda material to work with.
Personally were I the Dem presidential hopeful I am not sure would actively seek out the NAACP endorsement but instead go directly to the people of the black community themselves as Bush has been doing.
If the Dems continue to rely on organizations of the past and continue to ignore the rising Black middle class and the younger blacks they are in for a horrible suprise come November. Increasingly the Dem message gets more and more tired.
I still dislike Bush and would like to see him go but the Dems really need to reexamine their platform and bring it up to date and face the reality that the 60s and 70s are long gone. Institutions of the past become more and more irrelevant and for those who love to label themselves as progressives they seem to be more and more stagnant in their development and rigid in their thinking. I think Beladonna is a perfect example. Often when reading her posts i think to myself she should switch her affiliations as she sounds more and more Republican each day. Then upon further examination I realize my veiw of Dems has become stereotypical and the current image is in no way flattering. I wouldn't say she is "progressive" but she definetly seems to be more firmly grounded in reality than most other Dems I know.
I may wish for Bush to be gone but I cringe when I hear many of the Democrats ideas.

I wouldn't blame Bush for deliberately snubbing the group, he only received single digit support from African-Americans in 2000(especially since many of them were counted wrongly as felons, but that's another discussion ) I believe he did snub them on purpose. If he wanted to even make a token effort, he could've sent Dick Cheney and then had anyone who even looked at Dick wrong, arrested under the Patriot Act or something

I dont' believe that there is anything that the Bush-Cheney ticket could do to somehow woo more than 8% of the African-American electorate at large, let alone the NAACP. If I was George, I would try to appeal to them on the social issues, and use gay marriage as a wedge issue to try and siphon off a few votes. I would even emphasize the number of Black-minority individuals on staff.

1. Do you believe that Bush is deliberately snubing the NAACP? Why or why not?
Yes, because he has admitted it himself.


Wahhh. They called me names. I'm not gonna talk to them.

What kind of leadership is that?

Bush was treated with respect the last time he addressed the group and they have stated he would be treated with respect again. Just because some have taken issue with his policies or made remarks does not give him an excuse to ignore and disprespect the entire black community this group represents.

Obviously the job of showing up for a few hours, respectfully explaining his positions (and maybe even listening to a few of theirs) was too difficult for him to manage. Maybe it would have killed him to be diplomatic, presidential, and grown up about it.

Regardless of the NAACP's ability or willingness to further his political career he is still the leader of this country and it's his job to represent all of us whether he likes it or not. Everything is not always all about him. He was made President in order to serve us...not the other way around.

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

It ought to. It shows how remarkably thin skinned he is and how unable he is to lead when faced with opposition of any kind. These are not the qualities becoming of a US President. This is not an isolated incident, he has treated every group or individual that has had a grievance with his policies or decisions this way. Remember the million anti war marchers were dismissed as being a 'focus group'? They didn't count. Their opinions didn't count...and neither do the black, gay, Muslim, atheist, poor, uninsured, unemployed segments of our communities count to him. No one that has the audacity to disagree with him counts.

Bush is only a uniter in that he has a great ability to unite people against him. The only thing to be done about elected officials who treat their constituents this way is to make sure they are not re-elected or rewarded for their behavior.

From a very biased site:



Security did have these people removed.

Juan Williams wrote an article about the NAACP's used the tragedy of James Byrd in their political ads against Bush.



Where was the NAACP when three black men killed Ken Tillery in Jasper, TX, dragging him under their vehicle to his death and why weren't they advocating a hate crime charge then?

<snip>



<snip>



But, the NAACP has and will never recognize Bush or his black cabinet members for actually living the Dream. They will manipulate and distort the truth for their own political gain and unfortunately will discredit those black American leaders as Uncle Toms just because they are Republicans.

To quote John McWhorter:

…the president ought to decline the NAACP's annual invitation flat-out….Some will seize on this as evidence that Bush is "anti-black"; but these folks would insist on that regardless, and Bush will just have to chalk them up as losses. Truth be told, there are not nearly as many such people as we are often led to think, and if Bush wants to develop more of a following in black America, he must concentrate on those blacks committed to personal excellence and moving ahead. Sadly — but clearly — that will mean letting the NAACP go its own way.

1. Do you believe that Bush is deliberately snubing the NAACP? Why or why not?
He probably is, but I don't really blame him. When its election time you're not going to spend a whole lot of time in events where 90% of the attendees curse your name. Campaigns are about efficiency and time and him spending time at an NAACP convention is neither efficient or an effective us of time.

To quote his own opening from his NAACP convention speech in 2000:cite


2. Will this move by the Bush campaign have an effect on the election this November?
Potentially, sure. I think we would need better numbers as to how many African-Americans are undecided right now and how many actually plan to vote. Its early enough in the campaign season that this may prove to be a non-issue.

Doc

Going to an NAACP convention where he was likely to be received by a hostile audience doesn't sound like much of a fun time. The leadership of the NAACP made some off comments at the president, which is irresponsible for a "non-partisan" group. Thus, Bush has chosen to respond by not attending the convention. From what I've heard, it was the NAACP that started the quarrel, not Bush. To say Bush snubbed the organization for no particular reason is inaccurate.

It wasn't politically savvy, though. When Kerry goes to the convention, he'll capitalize on the fact Bush chose not to go. Lots of interesting sound bytes are soon to come.

Lets face it, Bush wasn't going to get much of the african american vote. However, he lost the few votes he would have gotten by not attending the convention.

Some of you act as though blacks are the only ones who could possibly object to this administration's active hostility towards minorities of all stripes.
I'm a white guy who planned to vote for Bush (solely due to my disgust with Gore and Lieberman) in 2000, but who took Bush's campaigning at Bob Jones University as a bad sign.

I see. Protestors made it through the front door and he's not able to tolerate such things. The security guards removed them...so why is he punishing the NAACP and blacks as a whole? Did they kick out the delegates who were supportive of the protestors? Should everyone be silenced because he is so sensitive he can't take it?

If Bush didn't just speak at venues where he was sure the audience would be friendly and if he didn't have his security detail make sure that it was impossible for any dissenters to ever get into these places before hand, he would have experienced quite a lot of similar scenes at most of the places he's spoken in the four years since then. It doesn't matter if he's talking to the NAACP, women's groups, Religious groups, or anyone else...there will be people that will take issue with some of his policies and, up until now, these people are used to being able to voice their dissent. But not if Bush can help it. He makes sure everyone is screened and checked out ahead of time...then he makes sure any protestors outside are shipped off a mile or so away so he doesn't have to see them either. They call these free speech zones. I thought the whole country was a free speech zone?

Bush's ego simply cannot tolerate impertinence and he get's angry when he isn't able to prevent people from treating him with anything but deference. If he can't be assured he'll be treated like a star or a king he just won't go...or, if he's not totally hostile towards the group in question he may just deign to address them via satellite instead...that way he can make it a one way conversation if he chooses to.

(You'd think he could have made it to a convention in Texas but maybe he really is too busy...still, it looks awfully suspicious since Latino's aren't exactly known to be part of his base.)


My point is not that he is racist...it's that he is too self important to feel obligated to speak to a crowd that isn't behind him 100%. And that he's a wimp.

Danya,

Did you miss this part?

Some NAACP delegates stood and applauded them. Others shouted their agreement.

This isn't about protesters. It's about members of the NAACP being unwelcoming to a presidential candidate. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to this type of hostility?

I truly believe that Bush desires to unite the Republican Party and the NAACP. But, just to put this in perspective, it isn't Bush talking smack about the NAACP. It is the leaders and members of the NAACP talking smack about Bush and the Republican Party. And the smack they talk is hateful and divisive.

In my opinion, the NAACP is not the same organization it was when Thurgood Marshall served as it's President and took the Board of Education to the USSC on behalf of Brown.

No one should be required to address an organization that harbors so much hate towards them.

No, I addressed it in the first paragraph of my response and it's also why I included all that stuff about how he has since made sure he doesn't have to face any negativity from anyone where ever he goes. He has to learn how to deal with people that disagree with him, not simply shut them out and cry over how mean they were to him. This is not an isolated thing and the NAACP is only the latest in a long line of groups and people Bush has insulted because they disagree with his policies.


What do you base this belief on? How has he demonstrated such a desire?

Because Bush isn't just anyone, he has a duty to serve the public and by snubbing the NAACP he is sending a message to the entire black population saying they don't matter enough for him to waste his time.

Let's not have a contest about which groups spew the most divisive hateful rhetoric because there are plenty on both sides and it really isn't the point.

A President who can't handle it when his critics 'talk smack' about his policies without taking it personally is probably in the wrong business. There is no way a person like that is going to be successful at leading this country. When the insults do get personal and hateful he might want to stop and figure out what it is he's done to create such hostility...especially when that level of hostility is starting to come from more than one prominent association or group. In almost every interview Bush has with the press these days he is asked to ponder why this country is so politically polorized since he's taken office. And he just shrugs because he honestly doesn't know and doesn't care. His lame excuse is that it's because he makes 'hard decisions'. (Don't they all? What kind of answer is that?)


That hasn't stopped every President since the 1920's from addressing them at these conventions. Bush is the first one since Hoover that couldn't deal. Do you think blacks hate Bush more than any other President we've had in the last 80 years? If so, they aren't the only group that feels that way about him...and it's his JOB to figure out how to unite this country and heal some of the hostility. That's what real leaders try to do. They may not always succeed, but this one can't even be bothered to try.

It sounds to me that President Bush might not get the soundbites he would want from addressing an NAACP gathering. The membership might object to the carefully orchestrated Bushspeak which is characteristic of all his campaign stops.

What name(s) did the NAACP call the President, just out of curiosity?

1. Could Bush make it any clearer that he's blowing off the NAACP. I'm sure the President gets thousands of invitations to speak. Most of which he will have to say "No" in response to. But his response was not just rude, but stupid. Stupid, not because Bush needs the NAACP, but if he has any hope in hell in bettering the pathetic nine percent of the black vote he got in 2000, you don't do it by declining the invitation in a nasty public spat with the leadership of the NAACP.

The leadership of the NAACP is not one and the same as the membership of the NAACP. Newsflash! "Black folks don't all think alike. Film at 11." But Bush's caustic refusal just basically drives home the point that he's not interested in presenting his side of the story to the attendees. That's stupid. While dissing the NAACP plays well with right-wingers, black conservatives and Zell Miller Democrats, it can't make Republicans concerned about the party's lack of diversity and perceived indifference to racial inclusion very happy.

But when you add Bush snubbing the nation's oldest and most-respected civil rights organization along with his crusade against gay marriage, it's obvious Dubya is concerned about wedge issues and playing to his hard right-wing basis is more important than reaching out and presenting his case that his Adminstration has been beneficial to blacks.

At least this should kill this "I'm a uniter, not a divider," noise once and for all.

2. The effect it has on the November election is that Bush has written off the black vote, (wow, big surprise) but as long as he has the support of Condi Rice, J.C. Watts and <removed> Clarence Thomas he's happy.

Colin Powell might be a bit iffy.

Speaking of which, Powell will be speaking to approximately 7,000 black, Asian, Latino and Native American journalists at the 2004 UNITY Convention next month in Washington. Journalists, people. Not exactly the natural constituency of the Bush Administration.

WASHINGTON – The National Association of Black Journalists is proud to announce that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will participate in NABJ-specific programming at the UNITY: Journalists of Color Convention set for Aug. 4-8 at the Washington Convention Center.

With 7,000 people expected to attend a joint convention of four journalism organizations, UNITY 2004 is expected to be the largest – and arguably among the most important – assembly of journalists in U.S. history, NABJ President Herbert Lowe said.

“We are thrilled that Secretary Powell will join us at UNITY 2004,” said Lowe, a courts reporter at Newsday in New York. “Many NABJ members remember when he spoke at our 1989 convention in New York as chairman-designate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary Powell has broken many barriers and is a tireless proponent of diversity. His remarks will be especially poignant before an even broader audience seeking to improve an industry that focuses on him every day.”


http://nabj.org/news070604.html

Powell, unlike the President, isn't afraid to go places other than pre-screened groups where the questions and format is guaranteed to be friendly and non-confrontational. Last year, Condoleeza Rice spoke at the convention of the National Association of Black Journalists and though some folks didn't dig her comparing the war in Iraq with America's civil rights era NOBODY BOOED OR TREATED HER DISRESPECTFULLY.

I emphasize that because apparently both George Bush and some people on this board don't believe black people know how to act when company comes over.




*inflammatory comment removed

Bush writes off the NAACP and its supporters, then claims that they never liked him or supported him anyway, and the Right-based pundits repeat it, while the kool-aid drinkers on the right nod their heads in agreement (I just learned the meaning of the kool-aid idiom ,--thanks Bela!).

The pundits then say, Look at the way the Democrats pander to blacks to get their vote. Pander? Coming to speak at their functions helps garner support. If that is what the Democratic candidates are doing, it can hardly be considered pandering.

Perhaps the President, all the gold in his war chest notwithstanding, does not have the time or the inclination to approach groups that are not solidly in his corner; indeed, that have the guts to confront him about the issues. (Speaking of which, when is he going to address the faithful Log Cabin Republicans, who used to be in his corner until he moved?)

The comment everyone is refering to is:

When I was watching Fox News, I thought I heard some other comments as well. But, I don't remember them.

I don't think that he cares about bettering it, Nighttimer. To him, its a lost cause.

Not a snub but definately an avoidance of damaging press. It's a smart move because whatever could be gained is offset 100 times over by what could be lost. Speaking to the NAACP won't gain any votes, and doing so could lose votes from the base -- by ticking off certain types who could cross their arms and not vote at all.



It reinforces the desire for NAACP-friendly voters to actually vote. Yes, that will have an effect. Probably not very large, but then a big effect will only happen with lots of little effects coming together.

It must be frustrating for President Bush. It's a net loss situation no matter what. And the press resulting isn't exactly flattering. How could it possibly be? Heh, I can see The Onion headline: President Bush Declines NAACP Invitation: Must Wash Hair And Do Laundry.

- CNN


The text of the speech by Mr. Bond can be found here (PDF file). It includes a call to all NAACP chapters everywhere to register voters and attacks not just Bush, but the Republican party in general. Referring to the current President and the upcoming election:

President Bush chose Martin Luther King’s birthday last year to announce that, even though he admitted society continues to do something special against racial minorities,xxiv his administration would not do anything special for them; he opposed the University of Michigan’s efforts to promote diversity among its student body. Bush chose Martin Luther King’s birthday this year to unilaterally elevate Charles Pickering to the federal bench – in the face of Pickering’s hostility to civil rights and leniency to cross burners. I was afraid to listen to Bush’s speech at the Brown commemoration in Topeka two months ago – afraid he’d announce he was going to repeal the 14th Amendment.

And

Any NAACP Branch that isn’t registering voters ought to turn in its charter. All history is worth remembering; not all history is worth repeating. We must guarantee the irregularities, suppression, nullification, and outright theft of black votes that happened on Election Day 2000 never, ever happen again.



Oh, I definitely think Bush has angered this group, and I definitely think it will have an impact at the polls.

Now if all this is in fact true I don't think that anyone has reason to say that Bond was not justified in making derogatory comments about Bush. I mean can you really give this group a much bigger slap in the face?

I would not have spoken to the NAACP either, if I was Bush. I don't think that he should disregard the black vote however, maybe an appearance on Tavis Smiley or Tom Joyner's show would be an appropriate venue. I think a lot of blacks are looking for a political voice outside the Democratic party, and a frank discussion of issues by Bush and assembled blacks would have a positive outcome.

But the NAACP is not the appropriate venue. I don't believe the organization to be non-partisan at all. I firmly believe that it is now merely an extension of the the democratic party.

When Kweisi Mfume says such gems as:

Link
Mfume also lies through his teeth when he says the president has refused to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus.
In fact Bush invited the all-Democratic CBC to the Cabinet Room on January 31, 2001.

He should not shun the black vote, but he made a wise decision to shun those who seek to further racial division to advance their political cause.

Here's a link to President Bush's speech last year:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/civilrights/proc011703.htm

You all can read it and decide for yourselves.

Here was Bush's stance on the UM Affirmative Action case:



Bush wants the same thing his brother implemented in Florida. A program that works and is not based on race.

Bush did place Pickering on the Federal bench on MLK Day. But Pickering is not a racist and his decision to reduce the sentence of one of the cross burners was based on the merits of the case.

Here is a 60 minutes interview with Pickering, Charles Evers and a few other African American attorney who know Charles Pickering. The interview explores Pickerings decision and his life as a supporter of racial diversity.

There was no need for him to speak at this anti-American organizations little get together. If they are upset then maybe they need to get a little class about their so called organization and stop shooting their mouth off and then expect rewards. No thanks on the NAACP. Thanks

As an addendum, Bush will be speaking at the National Urban League convention next week.
Link
Since I, and at least some other people don't view the NAACP as the 'most respected civil rights organization' I think this is a positive, and an intelligent move.

Here is a perspective of why Bush was right to ignore the NAACP: NAACP Hasn't Advanced Anything in a Long Time



Which is why Bush is going to the National Urban League and NOT the NAACP.

The author summarizes well:

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

Snubbing? No. As many have pointed out, they would have 'lynched' him. Minorities are not Bush's base. The Haves, and the Have More is his base.

Bush:



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

No, unless it inflamed Justice Clearance Thomas. It might change his vote this time around.

I think to snub a large group, regardless of whether their politics are in line with your own shows a politician that is not willing to work with the other side. I think George W. Bush shuld show up to the NAACP convention because if he truly is a uniter, then he'll want to meet with groups that don't share his political view.

I think it's apparent from other thread that George W. Bush is a divider, and he sticks to the ida of only mingling with people that think the same way he does. I think this is dangerous (as we see with the Iraq war) and you need a leader that will meet and go to functions of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Every other president before has gone to the convention, and we know the NAACP didn't agree with all their policies, but at least they met.

I DON'T THINK HE 'DELIBERATELY SNUBS' THE NAACP. I THINK HE GIVES THEM NO THOUGHT AND CONSIDERS THEM UNIMPORTANT.

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

Yes, he is, and for at least a couple of reasons. First, the NAACP is clear in its partisanship, and clear in its hatred for President Bush. There is no compromising of values when speaking to such a group and consequently no utility (in other words, it would be a waste of time). Second, President Bush is playing political war. By not addressing the NAACP he is making the statement that the NAACP has moved so far to the left that it is no longer mainstream and does not represent the concerns of the entire black American community. As Amlord mentioned above, President Bush will instead address the National Urban League.

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

This is a maybe for me. President Bush is strategizing that churches and organizations of black Americans will begin to break ranks from the NAACP. This potentially could win votes his way come November. Some signs say that it is working. I'll believe it when I see it.

George is that you? Welcome to AD Mr. President. Thanks for joining us.

Are all blacks Anti-American, or just the ones that gather in large groups?

Actually, I can't tell if you are referring to the NRA or the NAACP when you mention "shooting their mouth off".

No. Bush doesn't need to go talk to a group, who compared his party to the Taliban and said they wear swastikas (the NAACP must've forgotten that Senator Byrd(D) is a former KKK member)

The NAACP is just ranting and whining because they don't get attention from Bush. This won't effect the re-election at all

Hmm, so just because the NAACP doesn't get a long with Bush that means he should ignore them? I have stated several times in this thread and others that every president in recent history has met with the NAACP and for many of them their policies have directly conflicted with the goals of the NAACP.

NAACP Timeline

Here is a good example of the NAACP putting pressure on Wilson to effect change. You think the NAACP didn't perhaps say some disparaging things during this 5 year period? Do you think Wilson particularly liked them?


These are examples of how the NAACP directly effected 3 other presidents. I'm sure that in the interim they indirectly effected other administrations.

The only justification I see coming from Bush supporters is "what has the NAACP done lately"? To me this isn't a good excuse. Bush has no reason not to listen to the grievances the NAACP has, unless perhaps some of the things they have said about him are accurate.

Just because every president since Hoover has met with the NAACP, doesn't meant they are a group that must be kowtowed to each election cycle. Sometimes it's necessary to sever the cord when a group has shifted to the fringe and and lost sight of it's original purpose. It's goal now, IMO is simply to keep or put Democrats in power. I do not believe that they are the venerable civil rights organization that they once were.
I think meeting with the Urban League will be more productive than with the NAACP, though I would still like to see Tavis Smiley interview him on BET.

"Kowtowing?" That's a pretty harsh way to put it Dontreadonme. To be the first Chief Executive since Warren Harding to blow off the NAACP doesn't mean all those other Presidents were sucking up. They recognized the importance of a tradition.

"I understand that you've been having trouble getting some speakers," Mr. Kerry joked. "As a campaigner, I know a little something about scheduling conflicts and hostile environments. But when you're president of the United States, you can pretty much say where you want to be."

"And when you're president," Mr. Kerry went on, "you need to talk to all the people, and that's exactly what I intend to do. I will be a president who truly is a uniter, not one who seeks to divide our nation by race, riches or any other label."


Let's say, just for giggles, that the National Rifle Association were to invite John Kerry to speak at their convention. The chances they would endorse Kerry are probably slim and none, but it's the gesture and Kerry's response to the gesture that would matter most. It would be flat-out stupid of Kerry to say, "Hey, I'm not going to go waste my time speaking to a bunch of gun nuts. They've got it in for me."

A President can't claim to represent all the people of America and then cherry-pick ONLY those groups that support him to speak to. Maybe to some snubbing the NAACP and then fishing around for a black organization to speak to is poltically astute. I think it looks like a desperate attempt to find someone---ANYONE--with more than a dozen black members that Dubya can go speak to and not look like he's telling black people what his vice-president told Pat Leahy. Black voters aren't dumb. It's clear as glass that Bush speaking with the Urban League is a "make-good" for telling the NAACP to stuff it. Shame on the Urban League for being willing to be a party to this fraud.

Perception is reality. The perception is that George W. Bush has written off black voters. In a close election THAT could be a dangerous miscalculation.

As a candidate in 2000, Mr. Bush beseeched the NAACP to work with him and ''find common ground.'' It didn't happen. A recent Pew Research Center poll found only 17 percent of blacks have a favorable view of him.

Mr. Bush exacerbated the situation when he declined the invitation to speak. His short-sightedness makes him the first president since Warren G. Harding to skip each meeting of the NAACP during his entire term in office.

Initially, the President blamed a scheduling conflict. But during a campaign stop Friday in York, he cited criticism earlier of his administration by some NAACP leaders. It sounded petty. He might as well have said, ''I don't really need you, anyway.''

We think the President also sends another, unintended message to the rest of the country. Last week, he appeared before a friendly Republican audience in Kutztown. The audience happened to be almost all white. It was easy for him to shine, and he gave a fine account of himself. But this is the president of all Americans. Meeting in good faith those with whom he might not agree is a sign of strong leadership, too

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-edit...newsopinion-hed

Amlord, I will have to agree with you on your posts. Granted, I don't believe George W. Bush is a uniter but the NAACP to me is a big joke and they divide the black commmunity .

I'm a black American and I can tell you I don't believe organizations like the NAACP saying they represent my views. If anything, what have they done for the black community?

I have mixed feelings on Bush skipping out on the convention. No organization should personally insult anyone (Bush or anybody) and then expect them to come speak at their convention. However, Bush should understand that in most places around the country, a lot of people hate him.

I don't hate the President, I just disagree with his policies but I 'm against personal attacks on the President. Americans, lets show some respect (Republicans and Democrats).

Interesting perspective cgorham, in pondering your statements, I've come to find out that your sentiments are the views of our own secretary of education. Other than drudge, there hasn't been a lot of reporting about it, but here is what Rod Paige had to say about the NAACP.


Article


I would maintain that Mfume's comments, as addressed in another thread, is not an irresponsible statement. He was comparing the confederate flag and the CSA in general, to Nazi germany. He was merely pointing out that a lot of republicans have tended to be pro-"southern" when it comes to issues of the confederate flag and being opposed to "black friendly" policies. Whether or not the policies are truly friendly is another topic of conversation. I'm of the opinion that Bush and the NAACP merely disagree over how the road to African-American possibilities and potential should be pursued. I'm reminded of the differences between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois in this regard. The Republicans represent a more Booker T. Washington interpretation of things, the person who struggles to overcome institutional inequality through hard-work and perseverance. While the NAACP is more about institutional inequality and attacking it through political means. My only question is--Is it just a mere 8% of the black community that holds the viewpoint of Booker T. Washington, Rod Paige, and subsequently George W. Bush?

It seems we're beginning to tread into a separate thread, but if you can identify yourself as a "black American" in one sentence cgorham, and then ask in the next, "what have they (the NAACP) done for the black community?" then I would say you don't fully understand how the NAACP and other civil rights organizations like it made it possible for you to be here to make such a statement.

When I saw the author of the L.A. Times piece was John H. McWhorter, it became clear why his criticism of the NAACP was so acidic and why critics of the NAACP would gravitate to his words. McWhorter is a brilliant young academic and a neo-conservative who has authored two books I've read, Losing the Race and Authentically Black.

I agree with McWhorter in many of his observations about materialism and anti-intellectualism and how both work against the progress of black people. I do not share his disdain for the NAACP and black leaders whose polticial leanings run counter to his own.

What McWhorter---and indeed the majority of posters in this thread have focused almost exclusively upon---is the relatively meaningless hissy fit between Kwesi Mfume, Julian Bond and George Bush. So they're not going to get together and sing "We Shall Overcome." Big deal. That doesn't mean Bush is automatically a bigot or that the NAACP is a useless relic.

A better question than what has the NAACP done for the black community would be what has the Republican Party done for the black community? Certainly not getting blacks elected to political office.

If Bush really--seriously wants to do better than the single-digit support he got from blacks in 2000, bragging about appointing Rod Paige, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell ain't going to get it done.

For example, black Republican Party candidates - and conservative candidates, black or white, in general - have not demonstrated any significant capacity to advance electorally among African-American voters by exploiting the evolving attitude differences among BEOs or between BEOs and the black general public. According to the Joint Center's 2000 data, only seven black Republicans hold office in black-majority districts nationally - a record which, it must be said, indicates a stunning lack of interest by both the white and the black politicos of the GOP in sincerely pressing their case with black voters. Despite more than two decades of rhetoric that Republican conservatism offers African Americans a viable avenue for inclusion, the GOP has yet to mount a substantive real-life effort to address what poll after poll shows African-Americans consider major core issues - such as racist practices in housing, job markets, income/wealth patterns, educational opportunities, health patterns, and the criminal justice system. Instead, the Republicans have seemed content to play appointive politics with the black electorate. The 2000 presidential campaign and its aftermath saw the Bush Administration and its allies in the mainstream media temporarily shelve two decades' worth of a hard-line rhetorical advocacy of "color-blindness" in order to vigorously trumpet its high-profile black appointments

Nonetheless, the high-level appointments cannot obscure the GOP's abysmal black-related electoral record. In the 2000 election campaign, there were 24 blacks running for Congress on the GOP ticket - incumbent J.C. Watts, of Oklahoma, and 23 first-time candidates. Of the 24, only Watts won: all the 23 others lost. As Lee A Daniels put it in the February 2001 issue of Opportunity Journal, "What does it say about the Grand Old Party that it could capture the White House, but not get a single new black Republican elected to Congress.... Imagine the impact if 20 of those 23 black candidates had won office. Or if 15 had. Or 10, or even 5. We'd have been bombarded with declarations that the GOP was "now making serious inroads into the Democratic stranglehold on the black vote...."

In other words, when it comes to electoral politics, the Grand Old Party, America's mainstream conservative party, is still the same old party - it considers black voters invisible men and women. (emphasis by the author)

--- Dr. Martin Kilson's report to the National Urban League on the State of Black America 2002 http://www.blackcommentator.com/9_nul.html

While it's easy to focus on the sound and fury of Bush vs. the NAACP, the substance of how the leader of the Republican Party can defend the GOP's dismally undistinguished track record in creating a new black political leadership goes unchallenged and unanswered.

Hopefully, as they prepare to welcome the President the National Urban League won't shy away from putting that question before Mr. Bush.

Nighttimer,

You make it seems as though you believe that the GOP is a monolithic entity which selects who will run in what districts.

I don't see where you are coming from here: 24 black, Republican candidates when blacks are traditionally Democrats. Then you blame the GOP for not actually getting them elected, as if it is the political party itself that casts the votes? Just doesn't make sense.

I can understand that there is a low percentage of black, Republican candidates and that it is disheartening. But when the race as a whole cast 8% of the vote for George W Bush, how long, exactly do you expect GWB's coat tails to be with black voters?

What you fail to consider is that it is Mfume and Bond which have snubbed Bush. Their invitation was perfunctory, an empty gesture. What has been said at their convention only reinforces the fact that Bush made the right decision.

I'm tired of this stereotype that Bush is somehow a racist because he did not accept an invitation to dinner from the family that keeps throwing bricks through his window with notes that call his family racist.

Bob Herbert of the New York Times has a fascinating article about this problem in today's(July 16th) edition(registration required) The president's brother and the legislature didn't want to turn over any list of felons that will be used in the 2004 elections, barred from voting. Newspapers and the democrats sued and what did they find? The list of felons is almost exlusively of African-Americans(who tend to vote democrat) and the list with one or two exceptions did not include Hispanic felons (who vote republican) When you have instances like that, right or wrong, it gives the NAACP ammunition and credibility with the majority of African-Americans. I believe that a lot of people like Herbert believe that Bush puts up figureheads as evidence as to what he's done for them, but that when it comes to substance, he hasn't produced.

Julian Bond states "By playing the race card in election after election, they've appealed to that dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality. They preach racial neutrality, and they practice racial division."

And then says :"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," Bond said at the time. "They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."
Quick math: Bond=race card.
Has the NAACP lost it's collective mind? Rank and utter hypocrisy! Bush speaks to the NAACP convention and they return the favor by producing a supposed 'issue' ad comparing Bush's refusal to sign a meaningless 'hate-crime' law to the dragging death of James Byrd. Why in the world should he go back?
And to top it all off, Bush has the highest number of blacks in power positions in a presidential cabinet, ever. But that doesn't matter to the NAACP, they're conservatives, sell outs, they don't count. Even though as Nighttimer is fond of saying, and rightly so, "all black people don't think alike".
I'm confused here. If your really looking to include blacks and be fair and impartial toward all races, does it only count if they are liberal??
That's why the NAACP is an unabashed, unashamed wing of the Democratic party. Sound harsh? it's exactly the relationship the Dems accuse the NRA and the Republican party of having.

Nighttimer wrote:



True. People are extrapolating things from this issue that just don't logically follow.



Here's where I think the administration missed an opportunity. Rather than simply refuse the invitation to speak, why not make more out of some of the reasons why? I think cgorham's sentiment here is not unique--therefore this would have been an opportunity to put forward your case without having to speak at the NAACP.



I hope that he does--and I also hope that Bush presents a good answer. I think the Republican party has a message that, if articulated correctly, could sway the thinking of many Black Americans. For whatever reason, I also think they've done a terrible job of getting that across. No time like the present to improve on that. Part of this, I think, comes from looking at the Democratic monopoly on the black vote in the wrong way--if they're only getting 8% of the vote, they've got nowhere to go but up. It's an opportunity, not a road block. Imagine the political swing that would take place if they could get that 8% up to...say...20%.

And this is where the Administration needs to be bigger than the one we have now.

If I'm given a bully pulpit in front of people who don't like my views, perhaps I can use that pulpit to sway a few people to my views. And maybe if this Administration would show up ONCE to an NAACP convention instead of, say, Bob Jones University, the NAACP leadership might not feel compelled to snipe so hard.

Yes, it was an opportunity. To mend fences (or not). To put forth a vision of the progress already made and the progress to still be made (or not). To get a message out that shifts the direction of the discussion (or not).

I've learned the hard way that you win the most business just by showing up. Not showing up means you CAN'T win the business. Bush chose not to show up.

As for the Urban League: is Bush only supposed to speak in front of one black American group per election cycle? Or just those whose leadership is more friendly to Bush's views?

So republicans have never played the race card? Nixon's call to the "silent majority" wasn't a signal to people who didn't want their children next to black-children in integrated schools? Jesse Helms's anti-affirmative action ad that featured white hands crumpling a job rejection letter, with a voice-over that says the job went to a minority wasn't a blatant attempt at chasing the "stars and bars" in the truck back window population? Bush I's use of the Willie Horton ad-which really meant: Vote Bush or marauding, large black men will come into your house and kill you wasn't divisive? If the passage of the Byrd hate-crime law was meaningless, what would've been wrong in passing it? Couldn't they have done more than say-make public statements that what happened to Byrd was wrong? It wasn't divisive in the 2000 election to have a flawed felons list that took many non-felon African-Americans from the voting rolls?(looks like a modern day poll tax and literacy test in my opinion) Not only that, but the newly released list(only begrudgingly through the courts) shows that in Florida, the felons list is exclusively black(who vote democratic) and have left off Hispanics(who vote Republican) Things like that do not show that the GOP takes blacks for granted? Ignoring outright voter disenfranchisement and past policies that aren't friendly to the interests of African-Americans is supposed to be erased because members of the race are serving in the administration?

It could be said that focusing on appointments, and not policies, is tantamount to tokenism.


Eric Michael Dyson, The Nation

Modern day poll tax?
As reported by the US Commission on Civil Rights, there was a 9.9-percent error rate for whites versus only a 5.1-percent error rate for blacks and for Hispanics 8.7 percent on the purged felon list.
I don't believe you saw me write that, so why would you ask?


You're right, instead of merely getting the death penalty, the killers should have been force to undergo anger manegment classes. So filling the books with meaningless laws isn't a problem for you?


Yes, and it's a shame that both major parties practice this.

Speaking before a group that perpetuates myths to further a political agenda is a waste of time.

Well, let me see if we can reason together Amlord.

We both live in Ohio. Q: At this year's Republican National Convention who will be the highest ranking black elected official there? A: Ohio Lt. Governor Jeanette Bradley.

That's it. End of the roll call. No governors. No senators. No representatives. There will be a smattering of state elected officials, but the GOP is desperately short in top black talent that got their job through election, not appointment.

Now I'm not saying all of the 24 candidates were good candidates. Maybe some of them just ran lousy campaigns. But what I can't answer is how much help did the candidates get from the state and national GOP? How many of the candidates received a photo-op with the President or high-ranking Administration officials.

Republicans control the White House, Senate, House and most of the governorships. They are the dominant party in American politics today. And they don't have a single black elected official among the forementioned power bases. You can't blame blacks for their tepid support of Bush when the party as a whole has done little to change the paradigm that writes off their votes. Republicans haven't done enough to recruit, prepare and support credible black candidates.

So what came first? The lack of support for the GOP by blacks or the lack of support by the GOP to becoming more diverse and inclusive. Lip service to the idea won't get it done, Amlord. Voters want to be courted and the GOP is coming up short in that respect. For example, when you look at the U.S. Senate races this year, neither party is doing much to bring racial diversity. However, while the Democrats stand poised to reclaim Illinois in November with Barack Obama, there doesn't seem to be any black Republican similar positioned.

http://www.nrsc.org/nrscweb/races2004/il/

Hobbes is right. The Republicans have a message and ideas that would resonate with blacks if they could only do a better job of selling it. Why they haven't baffles me. I've said it once and I'll say it again: black people have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies; only permanent interests. If working with the party in power is what it takes to advance my interests, then you'd better believe that's what I'm going to do.

If by some miracle a Republican presidential candidate could break into the 20 percent range of black support that would be a seismic shift in politics and dispel the notion that the party of Lincoln writes off black voters.

What YOU fail to consider Amlord, is it doesn't matter if Mfume and Bond dislike Bush. What was said following Bush's snubbing of the NAACP was to be expected. The bolder course of action would have been to face down his critics and defend his record and play up his achievement as President. Make the effort. Don't surrender before even waging the fight.

Bush could have taken his message over the heads of Mfume and Bond and directly to the NAACP delegates. He could have--should have---fought for their hearts and minds. Maybe he wouldn't have won all of them, or most of them, but what about some of them? Not speaking to the NAACP was a miscalculation by the White House and the speed in which they accepted the invitation of the National Urban League confirms it. Personally, I will be paying close attention to what the President says.

Yeah, Dontreadonme, I do believe all black folks don't think alike. And they never have. Now who's going to tell that to Karl Rove and Karen Hughes?

I said that Bush wasn't a racist Amlord. But neither is it particularly bright to blow off America's most respected civil rights organization because you've got issues with the guys who run it. That's what the bully pulpit is for and Bush should have seized the initiative. Instead he allowed his opponents to define him and he played along in accomplishing that result.

That's not leadership and it sure isn't being a uniter instead of a divider.

It matters that the NAACP leadership dislikes Bush because there are alternative routes to reaching out to blacks.

Suppose I wish to donate to the cause of third world children. Would you call me insensitive to the needs of these children if I chose to donate to the Save the Children fund rather than to UNICEF?

The NAACP is not the only game in town which is addressing these issues. And when the leadership of the NAACP attacks Republicans and Bush they are harming themselves and their cause. Yet they don't realize it.

I read that Bill Cosby has been an "activist" for 40 years. He sought to change stereotypes of blacks by changing how he, himself, acted. He refused to accept stereotypical black roles and instead insisted upon (for example) being the brains in his "I, Spy" series, allowing the white guy to be the buffoon. His attitude is that you can't change the agenda of America if you don't have a seat at the table. Unfortunately for blacks, the NAACP has excused itself from the table, not by being black, but by being belligerent.

The NAACP is mired in old ideas, in an old set of paradigms. It needs a change in leadership, a change in direction. I have no doubt that the membership of the NAACP are fine, upstanding individuals. Unfortunately for them, they have fools and loudmouths as their spokesmen and leaders.

Is that what Bush was doing when he campaigned at Bob Jones University?
This administration has repeatedly shown itself to be hostile to the idea of equality for all, be it campaigning at BJU and issuing a non-apology or pledging to write discrimination into to constitution.