Is Bush cozying up to blacks?

[samsara15]

If so, good for him. It's time the GOP paid some attention to black people. For far too long, they have used ignored the political interests of black people and used them as their whipping boys. It is my hope that the rest of the GOP does so, aw well. The Democrats coming victory in November can be ameliorated if the GOP can get a few more black votes.

However, even a victory in November cannot hide forever the failure of the Bush presidency. History will eventually have its day, and the sham of Conservative infallibility revealed for what it is.

[bishop]

heh... bush's little visit isn't likely to gain him or his party any substantial support in the midterm elections. too little, too late imo.

[underbear1]

Bush changed NO ONE'S MIND at the NAACP convention, I just read a forum post of a couple who attended, many delegates got up and left in protest before Bush spoke. The TX delegates were repeatedly muttering..." He didn't do that," "That's a lie", etc..............the poster was from the Louisiana delegation.
http://politicalswitchboard.invision...=0&#entry58357

[dsanthony]

Quote by: samsara15 If so, good for him. It's time the GOP paid some attention to black people. For far too long, they have used ignored the political interests of black people and used them as their whipping boys. It is my hope that the rest of the GOP does so, aw well. The Democrats coming victory in November can be ameliorated if the GOP can get a few more black votes. However, even a victory in November cannot hide forever the failure of the Bush presidency. History will eventually have its day, and the sham of Conservative infallibility revealed for what it is.

The same libs on this forum who shout that creating "schisms" between the races only keep alive racism, keep alive the lie that Reps are anti-Black while Dems are pro-black. That is a lie. Blacks, by a large majority, are conservative christians and agree with Repubs on most social issues. In recent issues--faith-based initiatives, school choice and school vouchers among others... it was the Reps who took the posiiton favored by Blacks, while Dems took the principle of separation of church/state and the NEA unions over the interests of failing Black communities.

Reps are NOT anti-Black. They are anti-gang, anti-crime. When the black community starts aligning itself with real leaders like Powell and Rice, instead of race-baiting bigots like Jackson and Sharpton--then they will see that Reps are offering them "a hand" and not "a hand out"...

[Tony Clifton]

...& his Secretary of State is what...?...an Uncle Tom...?...
While no one's minds were changed; they also have selective impaired vision

[underbear1]

After Katrina Bush had a 2% approval rating with African Americans, the hurricaine got 4%.

[underbear1]

Quote by: dsanthony Quote by: samsara15 If so, good for him. It's time the GOP paid some attention to black people. For far too long, they have used ignored the political interests of black people and used them as their whipping boys. It is my hope that the rest of the GOP does so, aw well. The Democrats coming victory in November can be ameliorated if the GOP can get a few more black votes. However, even a victory in November cannot hide forever the failure of the Bush presidency. History will eventually have its day, and the sham of Conservative infallibility revealed for what it is. The same libs on this forum who shout that creating "schisms" between the races only keep alive racism, keep alive the lie that Reps are anti-Black while Dems are pro-black. That is a lie. Blacks, by a large majority, are conservative christians and agree with Repubs on most social issues. In recent issues--faith-based initiatives, school choice and school vouchers among others... it was the Reps who took the posiiton favored by Blacks, while Dems took the principle of separation of church/state and the NEA unions over the interests of failing Black communities. Reps are NOT anti-Black. They are anti-gang, anti-crime. When the black community starts aligning itself with real leaders like Powell and Rice, instead of race-baiting bigots like Jackson and Sharpton--then they will see that Reps are offering them "a hand" and not "a hand out"...

19 % of Blacks voted for Bush in 2004, which is the highest amount Republicans EVER got from Blacks. But those Black votes were bought with faith based initiative money, and played on the homophobia some evangelical Blacks thrive on.
So cut the cr*p about by a large majority of Blacks agreeing with Republicans, 81% is the large MAJORITY Sparky and they didn't vote for Bush.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dsanthony The same libs on this forum who shout that creating "schisms" between the races only keep alive racism, keep alive the lie that Reps are anti-Black while Dems are pro-black.

I think the GOP and Bush keep the "lie" going without any help from the Democrats. How about recent history (yes, Blacks know recent history)? Bill Clinton made a point of addressing this convention while Bush conspicuously AVOIDED it. Do you think the Democrats somehow forced Bush to stay away from the NAACP?
Bush has been president for SIX YEARS and this is the first time he has spoken to this group. I think black people might notice this little omission, don't you think?

How would you explain his not speaking to this group for all those years, dsanthony?

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: scribbles Bill Clinton made a point of addressing this convention while Bush conspicuously AVOIDED it. Do you think the Democrats somehow forced Bush to stay away from the NAACP?

And staying away from the NAACP means...what, exactly? That you hate black people? Does the NAACP actually represent all black persons within the U.S.? Or is it just a political activist group for the "advancement of colored persons" (I really wish I could ignore the glaring hypocrisy of such a group opposing groups that are too narrowly-focused on promoting the "white agenda").

[Jack]

Much of what the president does, and doesn't do, is symbolic. Different groups will interpret his actions and inactions as indicative of the interests of the majority of Americans. By failing to address a group that other presidents have made a near tradition of addressing regularly, he has made a statement that many are interpreting as a slight or showing of disregard.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: CliveStaples And staying away from the NAACP means...what, exactly? That you hate black people?

Of course not, and you can't make such an assumption either way. However, anyone who knows the first thing about American politics would realize that APPEARANCES mean a lot, and Bush has ignored this group when others have not. This may not show hatred but it doesn't show any support for blacks, or even a willingness to acknowledge them.
But, OTOH, Bush has spoken at plenty of GOP functions. How many blacks attended them?

Does the NAACP actually represent all black persons within the U.S.? Or is it just a political activist group for the "advancement of colored persons"

Of COURSE it is an activist group with an agenda. So is the AARP.
I believe the NAACP makes it clear that they work for all black people in the US so who they represent exactly is a matter of perspective.

This is still an obvious case of political pandering by a president who had no use for this group for a long time. If you think otherwise you haven't given any real reason for this.

[underbear1]

African American groups know which groups actually are doing the heavy lifting in their communities, caring for Katrina evacuees, fighting AIDS, providing foodshelves, etc.
Bush and Ken Mehlman like to use these BOGUS Black groups which THEY CREATE, for the expressed objective of getting a Black face to mouth the hateful crud a white Republican would be called racist for saying. These bogus groups have more names on their letterheads than members, and they count on the larger public being too stupid or too lazy to look at how few members they have.
African Americans aren't putting up with this any longer, and Bush knows how damaged his reputation is within that community, and the African American anger will be seen in Congressional races EVERY WHERE!

[dsanthony]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Quote by: dsanthony The same libs on this forum who shout that creating "schisms" between the races only keep alive racism, keep alive the lie that Reps are anti-Black while Dems are pro-black. I think the GOP and Bush keep the "lie" going without any help from the Democrats. How about recent history (yes, Blacks know recent history)? Bill Clinton made a point of addressing this convention while Bush conspicuously AVOIDED it. Do you think the Democrats somehow forced Bush to stay away from the NAACP? Bush has been president for SIX YEARS and this is the first time he has spoken to this group. I think black people might notice this little omission, don't you think? How would you explain his not speaking to this group for all those years, dsanthony?

Why would he speak to a political group which has marked itself as his enemy? Grow up. He didn't speak at the Democratic Convention either. He did speak several times at non-political black organizations. Racists always blame others for the repercussions of their actions.

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Scribbling However, anyone who knows the first thing about American politics would realize that APPEARANCES mean a lot, and Bush has ignored this group when others have not.

I couldn't give two sh*ts about appearances. You want to play politics, go ahead. I want a leader that's actually a leader. Let Congress play politics.

Quote by: Scribbles This may not show hatred but it doesn't show any support for blacks, or even a willingness to acknowledge them.

El.

Oh.

El.


You think that refusing to speak to the NAACP means...refusing to acknowledge black people?!

No, it means that you refuse to speak to the NAACP. You don't have to speak to the NAACP to support or acknowledge black people. The NAACP takes one particular approach to racial relations--an approach that not everyone agrees with. Those who disagree do not necessarily do so because of an apathy toward black persons.

You can't simultaneously say, "No, the NAACP doesn't represent all black people, it's just an activist group" and then say, "But if you don't accept their invitations, you don't care about black people." How utterly absurd.

[McAiden]

I don't see much black bias in the U.S. today but, have to admit, signs from yesterdyear still exist. Liberals like to hang together discussing things that ceased happening during the 1970's. They'd like to bring it back so they'd have something to run for pres. on. Actually, I see a lot of mixed marriage, in many nationalities.

[brien]

Quote by: samsara15 If . History will eventually have its day, and the sham of Conservative infallibility revealed for what it is.

Just what is "Conservative infallibility" ?

[brien]

Quote by: samsara15 If so, good for him. It's time the GOP paid some attention to black people. For far too long, they have used ignored the political interests of black people and used them as their whipping boys. It is my hope that the rest of the GOP does so, aw well. The Democrats coming victory in November can be ameliorated if the GOP can get a few more black votes. .

It doesn't matter what a Predsident does or doesn't do when it comes to the NAACP. As another poster mentioned, it is all extremely symbolic.

Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the Social Welfare programs probably did more to destroy the black family than slavery did in the 19th century. It was in the slavemaster's best interest, for the most part, to keep his slaves content and their families together. Not so in LBJ"S Welfare System.

The Social Welfare System of LBJ"S Great Society instituted the fatherless family by rewarding women by having babies out of wedlock. They were paid more money for every baby they had out of wedlock. It didn't matter if there was the same father or different fathers for each child. They were given homes and food, but not too much, just enough to get by, thereby remaining locked into a endless cycle of poverty.

Their young children were doomed to a life of poverty through the failure of inner city education. The females followed the role model of their mothers and perpetuated the fatherless child cycle. The males perpetuated the cycle of impregnating women with nary a care for being held responsible for child support. Male children had no male role models.

African American males then found refuge in lives of crime due to the failure of the education system in the inner cities. The large welfare sections in inner cities were the perfect protection for black drug dealing criminals who found it more profitable to earn money from sellling drugs than from working legitimate jobs that were mostly unattainable for them. One can make a very sound argument that the government has systematically created the extinction of the black male through imprisonment and murder. One can make the cogent argument that the government continues to keep illegal drugs a crime so as to eliminate the black male from society.

One can make a sound argument that the governement, headed up by well meaning but ill advised Democrats, and supported by Republicans as well, has established a system that has indeed destroyed the African American Family. And the Democrats have the nerve to claim ownership to the moral highground when it comes to aiding the blacks in modern American society. This is the biggest lie since Reconstruction and 40 acres and a mule.

There are intelligent alternative organizations for the African American today. But they eschew the tactics of Jesse "Shakedown Artist" Jackson, and the Reverend, :Where is my Church" Towana Brawley supporter, Sharpton.

Bill Cosby on the NAACP:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell052504.asp

Tom Sowell and Walter Williams on the NAACP

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...le.asp?ID=2691

From the link:The verdict is in. We now see the damage done by LBJ's War on Poverty, during which time the black illegitimacy rate grew from 25 percent to today's nearly 70 percent. Evidence shows the existence of a growing, thriving, black middle class well before the advent of affirmative action. Nor does history support the hysterical, emotional view that affirmative action accelerated the black middle class growth.

Sowell and Williams urge blacks to reject welfare in favor of self-help -- breaking the monopoly of public education, privatization of Social Security, and the adherence to responsible moral, personal, and sexual behavior. So who's the Uncle Tom? Those proposing the same old "solutions," or those, like Sowell and Williams, recommending real change?


Core:http://www.core-online.org/

From the link:

CORE's Mission:


CORE seeks to establish, in practice, the inalienable right for all people to determine their own destiny--to decide for themselves what social and political organizations can operate in their best interest and to do so without gratuitous and inhibiting influence from those whose interest is diametrically opposed to theirs. CORE feels that the most important fundamental freedom for all people is the right to govern themselves. Once this simple ideal is realized, other necessary freedoms will automatically follow.

In essence, CORE's aim is to bring about equality for all people regardless of race, creed, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion or ethnic background. In pursuing its aim, CORE seeks to identify and expose acts of discrimination in the public and private sectors of society. When such an act is uncovered, CORE, with its many multi-service departments, goes into action.

Roy Innis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Innis


The Manhattan Institute:http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mi_links.htm

The American Civil Rights Organization: http://www.acri.org/

What we see is the NAACP is a organization that respresents less and less the Black Community and more and more the radicals whose only concern is to coopt the Democrats into pushing an agenda that is harmful to the African American Community.

I am not defending GWB and his record on civil rights but I don't blame him for staying away from the NAACP in the past. This year's appearance is merely a failed political ploy to attempt to placate the black leadership in the NAACP.

The Republicans would do better to seek out and showcase Black Americans who are not associated with the NAACP but rather with organizations such as the ones above in order to attract intelligent black voters as opposed to the sheeple of the NAACP. But they won't and this is the failure of the Republican Party.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dsanthony Why would he speak to a political group which has marked itself as his enemy? Grow up. He didn't speak at the Democratic Convention either. He did speak several times at non-political black organizations. Racists always blame others for the repercussions of their actions.

You might have a valid point if he continued to avoid the NAACP. He didn't and you don't.

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Scribbler You might have a valid point if he continued to avoid the NAACP. He didn't and you don't.

You do know why he's speaking there, right? The 1965 civil rights/voting act is going to be renewed. I'm not surprised that Bush would take the time to address the NAACP, considering its previous involvement in actually crusading for equal rights.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: CliveStaples I couldn't give two sh*ts about appearances. You want to play politics, go ahead. I want a leader that's actually a leader. Let Congress play politics.

How nice that YOU don't care about appearances. Too bad we're not talking about YOU.

And are you deliberately misspelling my screen name or are you too stupid to know how to use the quote function properly?