posted
I'm trying to figure this move out. And I'm trying to figure it out under the premise that the Bush team isn't a bunch of clueless racists. The refusal of Bush to speak at the NAACP convention - the first sitting president to do so since Harding - obviously gives more energy to African-Americans wanting a regime change to get out the vote.
What does Bush get out of his refusal and his comments? Is this playing to some of the not-so-inclusive folks in his voter base? In other words, is he returning to the techniques of Richard Nixon and his own dad at playing race to his advantage with angry white men?
quote: Bush Criticizes NAACP's Leadership Relationship With Rights Group 'Basically Nonexistent,' President Says By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A05
YORK, Pa., July 9 -- President Bush said Friday that he has a "basically nonexistent" relationship with the NAACP's leadership and he refused for the consecutive fourth year to speak to the group's national convention.
Bush's assessment of his relationship with the nation's largest civil rights organization was a sharp reversal from his rhetoric during his last campaign. Then he spoke to the group's convention as part of an effort to show he was a different kind of Republican and said that "there is much we can do together to advance racial harmony and economic opportunity."
Bush will not be speaking before the 2004 convention, which will open Saturday in Philadelphia. Bush, during a day-long bus tour through Pennsylvania, said in an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer and two other state newspapers that he "admired some" NAACP leaders and said he would seek members' support "in other ways."
But he castigated the group's officers, who include President Kweisi Mfume and Chairman Julian Bond. "I would describe my relationship with the current leadership as basically nonexistent," Bush said, as reported by Knight Ridder Newspapers. "You've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me."
Earlier this week, the White House said the invitation had been declined because of scheduling commitments, and officials said that was the reason cited in the letter to the group. But when asked about the matter by reporters on Air Force One on Friday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan made it clear that a lot more was involved. "The current leadership of the NAACP has certainly made some rather hostile political comments about the president over the past few years," he said.
The NAACP said Bush is the first president since Warren G. Harding not to meet with the group while in office.
posted
Could be he's trying to show that he wont be pushed around special intrests (note: I said show this, I'm not making any comment about what he actual did either way).
Or perhaps he really just is too ticked at the way NAACP has treated him to be willing to go and speak in front of them.
posted
The NAACP leadership isn't that kindly disposed towards GW and some of the policies of the administration. And they've said so.
Big whoop. That's life and politics.
They were pretty critical of Nixon and Reagan, too, as I recall. It didn't stop either of them from addressing the membership of the organization.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is politics, I'm not trying to defend Bush, just figure out his motivation for this move. (And for that matter, I'm not trying to attack him either).
quote:George Bush Brushes Off The NAACP Written by Chuck Terzella
President George W. Bush has admitted that he has a “practically nonexistent” relationship with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), citing as his reason that “Black Folks just seem to hate me” and has refused for the fourth consecutive year to address the organizations National Convention.
President Bush, speaking on the condition that racist white people vote for him in November said, “During the last campaign I went over to talk to those folks and you know what? They’re all Black People! I was amazed; me and my Secret Service boys were the only White People in the room. I told my bodyguards right then and there to lock and load and be ready to move until they got me outta there. It was tense, I’ll tell you."
After initially citing scheduling difficulties as the reason for the President’s refusal to address the Convention, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan admitted that the reason was that, “the current leadership of the NAACP has certainly made some rather hostile political comments about the President over the last few years.”
NAACP President Kweisi Mfume responded saying, “Look, I don’t know what that Cracker Klansmen thinks a hostile comment is, but just because I may have called him a Racist Neo-Con Honky and a Race Baiting White Boy doesn’t mean I don’t have the utmost respect for him as a man. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any respect for him, but that’s not what those comments were meant to imply.”
Unnamed White House Source Wegman (Pudgy) Waterhouse, speaking on the condition of anonymity said, “ While we in the White House just love the stuffing out of Black Folks, just look at Condi Rice, Colin Powell and Elaine Chao, we don’t particularly like guys with strange names that we can’t pronounce like Kweisi Mfume. I mean what the hell kind of name is Kweisi? Why can’t he have a name that President Bush can say, like Tyrone or Jackson? I think he calls himself that just to make George Bush look stupid.”
When informed that Elaine Chao was Asian American not African American, Waterhouse, speaking on the condition of more anonymity said, “ What difference does that make? She ain’t White.”
posted
Yes - Rush Limbaugh explained this at great length last week, and it made sense to me at the time. He was going to be kind of "damned" either way -- talking to them or not talking to them -- and he chose not to. But I don't remember the whole defense Rush gave.
posted
See, Farmgirl, that's just it - Limbaugh appeals to the basest and nastiest in the conservative ranks. It only reaffirms my suspicions that this is exactly where Bush may want to go.
I repeat - both Presidents Nixon and Reagan were treated to harsh criticism by NAACP and other minority groups. Reagan was especially adept at making a show of being above it - whether you believed it or not - it was smart and served him well.
I'll have to check the quotes Limbaugh gave - as indicated on an earlier thread, he's been known to stretch and even fabricate quotes. Bond could have said those things - I'll try to track them down from a source other than Limbaugh.
Edit to add: even though it was clear that the NAACP wasn't supportive of his presidency or his policies, Reagan was obviously able to find some course beyond "damned either way."
posted
Okay. Let me get this straight. Bush's stated reasoning in this is, basically, "They've called me names so I'm not going to talk to them."
Is it just me, or is that kindergarten logic: "you're mean to me, so I'm going to take my ball and go home." If Bush is so thin-skinned that he's not going to deal with anyone who says anything negative about him, he needs to not be in politics. Since he is president, my personal opinion is that Bush needs to grow up.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to say it, but I wonder if it matters? I mean, if it is just an honorary - the Pres has always come, so he has to come even if we say nasty things about him - what's the big deal about not going? It is a refusal to pander. I'm sure there's a speech out there that could be dynamite, but barring a willingness to give THAT speech, turning down an obligatory smiling-through-clenched-teeth occasion actually appeals to me, though not necessarily in a leader.
It's horribly arrogant, of course. It's saying "I don't have to kiss up to people who don't like me." Probably the wrong business to suddenly develop those ethics in, but then, there hasn't been a lot of display of those particular skills before. Not going (which means promoting) a group that has not supported him is very consistent the president that blew off the United Nations. No, I sincerely doubt this was rascist at all. It's very, very consistent with other actions.
NAACP: "We don't support you, your policies, or your character. Now, come to the party." Prez: "Good luck with that."
posted
Lalo, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't see how this is a surprise, though. He blew off the United Nations. You think he's going to pander to someone who said the people who supported him were like the Taliban?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the problem. If somebody said those things about me, I wouldn't want to play ball with them either.
People complain that politicians always act like politicians. But here, when Bush seems to be displaying a normal, perfectly reasonable reaction, and he is scorned because he's not being enough of a politician?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I truly wish people would stop defending such an ineffectual president. It's clear that he can't take criticism, at all. He just doesn't have the guts to face a room full of people who disagree with his policies. Politically, it's not a good idea. Blacks do make up a good ammount of the vote after all (myself included). The least he could do is TRY to make an appearance, after all, part of being a politician is being able to take a little heat now and then... As he should...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come to think of it, why did they want him? Considering what had been said about him, why did they want him to come? Is anyone ever obligated to show up where they aren't wanted? Melanie Wilkes' birthday party excepted, of course.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Julian Bond made the comparison - yeah he's president of the NAACP - but it wasn't the entire organization. And it wasn't at one of their own meetings or conventions. That hyperbolic rhetoric doesn't fly well with me on either side. There's been some of it in Bush's own administration - the link you provided has a bonus with the article. There's a link to the story when Bush's secretary of education referred to the NEA as a "terrorist organization."
Fact of life: that's the type of rhetoric being used by both sides. If he was more skillful, someone who really did know how to try to reach out beyond his "base," - he'd find a way to negotiate this the way other presidents have.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did it work for other presidents? I don't know - I agree that there is a killer speech that could be given here and its a missed opportunity to give it, but...I mean, a missed opportunity is to be regretted, but not exactly something you can blast people for. It's essentially saying that it's too bad he's not another person entirely, and while that may be true, it doesn't really seem fair.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:He just doesn't have the guts to face a room full of people who disagree with his policies.
Being compared to the Taliban is not a disgreement on policies, it's a full out attack; and not exactly a civil one at that.
quote:Politically, it's not a good idea. Blacks do make up a good ammount of the vote after all (myself included). The least he could do is TRY to make an appearance, after all, part of being a politician is being able to take a little heat now and then...
He took the heat and moved on. If this speech were important (in a non-political way), if it meant getting something accomplished besides trying to get the black vote, then I could see the argument that he should swallow his pride and go. In fact I would agree that he should swallow his pride and go. But what exactly is he turning down? This isn't an important summit, or a key meeting, this is an opportunity for Bush to get the black vote, or for him to be attacked in person. If it's B, then I really don't see why you'd think less of Bush for it since no one would gain anything by it; and if it's A I would think that's more impressive that he's saying he wont take this opportunity to go after what is, as has been said, an important vote because he isn't willing to by hypocritical about it.
Not that I think Bush is some how pure and clean and has no trace of hypocrisy, I'm just saying, this act seems clean enough to me.
posted
But, suppose they are right (slightly) in their comparisons? Shouldn't he try to defend his point of view?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
good catch on the discrepancies in the news stories in regard to how long presidents have been addressing audiences of the NAACP. I just read Julian Bond's address to the convention, and he said that TRUMAN was the first president to speak to a NAACP audience.
Go figure.
Anyway, I'm changing the thread title as a result of your sharp eye for detail.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Every president for the past 50 years, or maybe 100, has met with the leading African American lobby group at least one time during their presidency.
President Bush met with them when he was running for President in 2000.
At that time he promised he was above the old stereotype Republican conservative that believed every race had its place. No, he was a compassionate conservative that wants equality, and fairness.
Then, when elected by not a few African American votes, he proposes legislation (such as stricter Welfare reform, cuts to the taxes of the wealthies, cuts in government spending on the poor) and refuses the invitation to return and speak.
His refusal wasn't for this year, but also for last year, and the year before that, and the year before that.
And he uses as his excuse for declining the invitation, that some of the leaders of the NAACP have been against him.
He punishes the entire NAACP for the faults of a couple of their leaders, and decides attempting to re-win thier support is not worth the effort.
He could have left his refusal off as a scheduling difficulty. After all, the president is a busy man, especially during an election year.
Instead he says, almost proudly, that this snub is vengeance for their attacks on him.
Just as the invasion of Afghanistan was vengeance for thier support of Al Queda.
Just as Gulag Guantanamo is vengeance for those who attacked the US
Just as the war was vengeance for Iraq's verbal attacks on the US.
Just as the US's policy to North Korea, cutting off their oil and food supplies, was vengeance for their daring to lie to us.
It reminds me of the leak about the CIA Credentials of the wife of the ambassador who dared to point out that the President and the CIA were wrong.
Is it me, or is there the slightest chance that someone in the Presidents administration is a lit bit too much into the whole vengeance thing.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget his education policies and the negative effects they have on poor black youth... See Bushwacked-Life in George Bush's America.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turning down an invitation to speak is not on the same level sending, say, tanks to the convention instead.
The way I see it, there were two opportunities lost.
1. The hand-waving, clenched-teeth, polite, political, token appearance, and
2. The opportunity for a rip-roaring speech that includes everything that needs to be said and speaks candidly of the weaknesses and strengths of both sides and what could actually happen next.
To the first and most likely opportunity, oh well. Maybe not wise politically, but since nothing great was going to happen anyway, the lack of desperate need to feel loved is kind of refreshing.
To the second, that is too bad. I haven't seen really anything in the past of this administration that would indicate this opportunity was likely to happen anyway, though.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then, when elected by not a few African American votes, he proposes legislation (such as stricter Welfare reform, cuts to the taxes of the wealthies, cuts in government spending on the poor) and refuses the invitation to return and speak. ADD: Don't forget his education policies and the negative effects they have on poor black youth... See Bushwacked-Life in George Bush's America.
Well basically what hed did was get elected with a lot of Black votes and then proceed to pass numerous Republican bills. If these are bad bills (which I would agree with) that's one thing, but first off they're not anti-Black, they're appraoching it from a totally different economic stand-point, and for the most part, a Republican stand-point. I have to admit, I don't recall Bush claiming to be different from other republicans when it comes to race relations, or really just about any other issue, and the fact that he signed off on bills that his party wanted really shouldn't surprise anyone. Disagree with his assment of the merits of those bills, but I really can't say that this is somehow an awful thing to do, I just disagree on policy.
quote:And he uses as his excuse for declining the invitation, that some of the leaders of the NAACP have been against him.
He punishes the entire NAACP for the faults of a couple of their leaders, and decides attempting to re-win thier support is not worth the effort.
Picture this headline: "Cheney copmares NAACP leadership to the Taliban" And then imagine that the leader of the NAACP refuses to speak at the white house to try and win the support of the President. Are you telling me that you would think that was the wrong thing to do? After all, in that case it wouldn't even be the leader of the Whitehouse making the comment.
And your quote also makes the assumption that giving a speech at the NAACP meeting will "re-win" their support.
quote:He could have left his refusal off as a scheduling difficulty. After all, the president is a busy man, especially during an election year.
Instead he says, almost proudly, that this snub is vengeance for their attacks on him.
If he did the first he'd be a liar, and it's kind of nice he's risen above that don't you think? And in number two... I really don't see that you can assign motives like pride and vengances. The quotes in the article from Bush were all exclusivley "there is no realtionship between myself and the leadership". Which could be either he wants vengance or perhaps that he recognizes trying to gain back someone's support who compared you with the Taliban would be beyond difficult.
quote:Just as the invasion of Afghanistan was vengeance for thier support of Al Queda.
You really think that going into Afghanistan was a bad move? If so I'd be curious as to what you think we should've done in reaction to 9/11. Once again, perhaps Bush was just angry and wanted to hit back, or perhaps he thought it was the best move for the country. In both cases where two possible motivations were possible, you've assigned him the negative one.
quote:Just as Gulag Guantanamo is vengeance for those who attacked the US
I thought Guantanamo was a holding area for prisoners from the war.
quote:Just as the war was vengeance for Iraq's verbal attacks on the US
I have to say, I've never before heard of that as a reason to invade Iraq, but remember, next time the issue of having not found WMD comes up, this is what you said the actual cause for the war was.
quote:It reminds me of the leak about the CIA Credentials of the wife of the ambassador who dared to point out that the President and the CIA were wrong.
Totally agree, that was vengance plain and simple.
quote:Is it me, or is there the slightest chance that someone in the Presidents administration is a lit bit too much into the whole vengeance thing.
Well there is a chance of this certainly, you've taken all these actions of his and every time assigned him the worst possible moivation, and I just don't think that's really proof of anything.
And to be clear here, I don't like Bush, I think he's screwed up, I think he gotten a lot wrong. I would prefer Kerry to win over Bush in the coming election (though I actually don't want him either, I would prefer him). It's just I find many of the arguments against Bush to be too much of a reaction. It's so clearly seperated, each time Bush does something, doesn't matter what, it seems like I see the same people turning whatever it was he did or said in to something negative, perhaps I'm imagining it, but as of right now, I'm just trying to respond. Please forgive my bluntness, I guess I'm not normally.. this... blunt.
posted
Kat et al - this is one way in which this administration is really really clueless. And they're dragging their party with it.
Let me give you an example - I work in disability advocacy. Believe it or not, there were some pretty strong advocates within both the administrations of Bush senior and Reagan. Not much of that going on in this administration.
The group I work with has some common ground with both the President and his brother, Jeb Bush, gov. of Florida. We and other national disability groups support Ashcroft in the assisted suicide legal battle in Oregon. We and other national disability groups support Governor Jeb Bush's current legal fight to protect the life of Terri Schiavo.
Neither of the Bushes seem inclined to acknowledge or build on the support of disability groups in these cases, preferring instead to have them continue to be viewed as "prolife." Neither Bush - and this applies to the staff people under them - seem to have a sense that there's value in expanding the base of your support.
(this is one thing the left and right have in common - their willingness to marginalize disability advocates in policy battles that are about us.)
So yeah - this is all very consistent with the Bush I have come to know in the past few years. He's probably the most divisive person to hold the office since Nixon.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The opportunity for a rip-roaring speech that includes everything that needs to be said and speaks candidly of the weaknesses and strengths of both sides and what could actually happen next.
When has Bush ever given a "rip-roaring speech?" He's proven time and again that public appearances and speeches are not his strong suit as a president.
I am tired and was ranting totally unbacked up by supporting evidence.
Let me just say this--somehow the NAACP leadership did the name calling, but the Bush Administration is the one that is appearing childish.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Bush is wise now not to do it, although he should have left it a scheduling conflict. Bush would be booed off the stage, and the news would make hash of it for weeks.
I think some of the harshest name calling happened during the Florida mess, but I can't find it now. If that's the case, it would explain Bush's hurt feelings.
Dagonee *What if he went and pushed for reparations. Wonder how that would fly...
I'm sure there was a lot of bad blood over Florida. Part of the voting mess there involved people being told they weren't registered or on lists of felons barred from voting. The vast majority of the (I think) thousands of people this happened to were black.
Bush seems fundamentally incapable of reaching out beyond his "base" - perhaps because he thinks the national security issues will be enough to ensure some votes from those outside his base. I've seen it in the total lack of bridge-building in areas I DO agree with him on.
I'll have to dig up the link, but one of the Republican leaders was saying a few months ago (might have been Roberts) that he had not met with Bush at all during his presidency. And he knew that Bush did not meet with any congressional Democrats either. His message - as a supporter of the president - was that Bush overrelies on a very narrow group of advisers and is not keen on building consensus.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People complain that politicians always act like politicians. But here, when Bush seems to be displaying a normal, perfectly reasonable reaction, and he is scorned because he's not being enough of a politician?
It's a perfectly childish reaction, and a display of incredible privlege. Does anybody else wonder if this attitude squashes healthy debate at his briefings, the result of which may lead to him surrounding himself with a dangerously like-minded staff?
quote:And then imagine that the leader of the NAACP refuses to speak at the white house to try and win the support of the President. Are you telling me that you would think that was the wrong thing to do? After all, in that case it wouldn't even be the leader of the Whitehouse making the comment.
Hobbes, do you understand why the leader of the NAACP wouldn't refuse that opportunity? Do you understand that even though the White House could have said those things, the opportunity to speak at a White House gathering could yield such exposure and good for the cause that refusing the invitation and denying yourself the podium would do more harm for the organization than suffering your bruised ego. This the power dynamic of racism, Hobbes.
__________________________
As to caving to special interests, this isn't big tobacco, it's a huge symbol of a civil rights legacy with which he is confronted, but that he feels he can dutifully ignore, even as President of the nation. Man, that's privilege. Is this the face of compassionate conservatism?
posted
I think he should go down and whup on all them folks to put 'em in their place. Or maybe them NAACP kids should all go to the White House and whup on the folks that done insulted 'em.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I haven't seen really anything in the past of this administration that would indicate this opportunity was likely to happen anyway, though.
