After that evil despicable ad I'd tell them to get fucked too.

WriterDom

Good to the last drop
Joined
Jun 25, 2000
Posts
20,077
Bush turns down invitation to NAACP convention
By Steve Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


President Bush has turned down an invitation to speak at next week's annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in New Orleans, citing a busy week on Capitol Hill. Top Stories


"We invite every sitting president to come and talk to us," said Hilary Shelton, director of the 500,000-member civil rights group's Washington bureau. "I was surprised. President Clinton came every year but one, and then he sent Al Gore in his place."
A Jan. 30 invitation from NAACP President Kweisi Mfume asked Mr. Bush to be the keynote speaker on July 11.
"Since we are very limited on time, we would appreciate your remarks being limited to 20 minutes," Mr. Mfume requested.
In a June 5 reply to Mr. Mfume obtained by The Washington Times, a deputy assistant to the president said Mr. Bush "appreciates your extending this opportunity ... [but] due to the heavy commitments of his schedule, we must unfortunately regret."
The note was written on White House letterhead and signed by Bradley A. Blakeman, the deputy assistant to the president for appointments and scheduling.
"The next several weeks are critical weeks for many of the president's key initiatives," Bush spokeswoman Claire Buchan said yesterday. "And given the out-of-town nature of this event, we are not able to accept the invitation."
Mr. Bush spoke at last year's convention while running for president and received a chilly but polite reception, with the applause subdued and scattered. In contrast, Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton were well-received and welcomed with warm embraces on the ballroom dais of the same convention by Mr. Mfume and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond.
Support for the refusal was widespread, outspoken in some cases, among conservative blacks who are working to help Mr. Bush gain more black support.
"After what the NAACP did to him last year in those ads, portraying George Bush as a bigot and a racist. The NAACP was so dishonest and so undemocratic, I wouldn't go either if I were him," said Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
Many Republicans were shocked by NAACP-sponsored media ads last summer that linked Mr. Bush to the three white racists who murdered a black man in Texas by chaining him to their truck. Renee Mullins, the daughter of victim James Byrd, said in the ad that Mr. Bush's refusal to support a hate-crimes bill while governor of Texas "was like my father was killed all over again."
Added Colorado Lt. Gov. Joe Rogers, who is spearheading a national effort at garnering the administration more black support, "It is the NAACP that has an obligation to mend the fences and extend an olive branch after that election last year. That is an organization that was previously committed to representing the diversity of a group that includes both Democrats and Republicans. But they worked so vehemently against [Mr. Bush]."
But Alvin Williams, executive director of the Republican group Black America's Political Action Committee (BAMPAC), was wary of the refusal.
"These are Americans and they have issues, and this is the most powerful civil rights organization in the country, and you don't just throw that out the window," he said.
The political wedge between the administration and the NAACP, under the hand of Mr. Mfume, a former Democratic congressman, is formidable.
The NAACP's $9 million Voter Fund was widely credited with earning hundreds of thousands of black votes for Mr. Gore in November's election.
Past Republicans have sporadically accepted NAACP's invitations to speak.
Mr. Bush's father addressed the national organization's annual convention as president in 1992 and, as vice president, in 1983 and 1988. President Reagan addressed the convention in 1981.
But Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole snubbed the group in 1996, arguing that the invitation was an attempt to "set me up." Mr. Dole later apologized for what he called a missed opportunity.
Such Republican fears are probably legitimate, noted David Almasi, a spokesman for Project 21, a black conservative group.
"The president has made a lot of inroads since the election with a lot of blacks other than those tied to the NAACP," Mr. Almasi said. "He doesn't need to work with this group, considering the way they treated him during the election. It's like 'OK, come and get abused by us.' The NAACP spent millions of dollars tearing his image apart and, in some people's minds, misrepresenting him."
 
Give me a break, they publicly smeared the man and now when its over want to be buddies. I wouldn't go either. They even got a polite reply, that in itself is very classy.
 
I think it's rather refreshing not to have a President who sucks his finger and then sticks it in the air to see which way the poll winds are blowing so he can make the most politically viable decision.
 
I am actually quite happy he is being "real" and not giving in to the politically correct way that is popular. Even the National Black Chamber of commerce is backing him.

He does have some race issues, but why should people like the NAACP have to be the "supreme" black race accepter. Are we saying that the NAACP holds the only black view in this country.

I commend George Bush on this one.
 
lavender said:
A President is democratically elected. His job is to watch the polls, his job is to do what the people want. We are his constituents this is how a democracy works, is it not?

I can't believe you think this is what Bush is doing. What Bush is doing is saying that he doesn't care about the individual voter, he really is only the President of big business.

So the NAACP is the voice for all America? What Bush is saying is that if you slander and smear someone, he will not support it.
 
lavender said:
A President is democratically elected. His job is to watch the polls, his job is to do what the people want. We are his constituents this is how a democracy works, is it not?


First, this is not really a democracy, it is a representative Republic. It this was a democracy, we would have President Gore who would be speaking at the NAACP for sure.

Second, although if he is to even think about a second term, a president must keep an eye on the polls but "His job is to watch the polls"?????? Please, in that case we don't need a president, just bring everything up for a vote. That would be a true democracy. The whole country run by spin-meisters, making us see things their way.

Third, his job is to do what is best for the people, not what the people want. My kids want ice cream and cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Thats what they want, but my job as a parent is to give them what is best for them. Same thing. And what group would decide what it is we want? Should we take turns? This week it the White Pride, next week its the Rainbow Coalition, then the Jewish folks, the Hispanic, pick your group. Hell of a way to run a country

I'm not saying I don't think he should or should not speak at the convention. I don't really care. Oh, wait, that means he's doing what I want, so he's right in not going, at least by your arguements.
 
And what would happen if Al gore turned down a chance to speak at an NRA convention?

Would he be branded a coward, unwilling to try and change the voting habits of a group that vehemently opposes him, or a stand-up guy for not bowing to political pressures?
 
lavender said:
PC -

Logic, I know you have an immense amount of it. You are most of the time Mr. Practicality around here. But, the NRA groupies are just slightly different than the African American community. Wouldn't you agree?


What's so different about them? They are both special interest groups, although the NRA's interests are much more narrowly defined.

They both vote along party lines, the NAACP voting well over 90% democratic and the NRA I'm certain is probably over 75% republican.

They both run attack ads on the opposition. I think they are very similar in a lot of ways.

I also think they shouldn't expect too dang much from Bush after the way they attacked him. They made their bed.

This opportunity for him to speak is simply an opportunity for them to get some press showing what a jerk they think he is. They will ask him uncomfortable questions about the voting in Florida and his opinion on reparations; he'll squirm and look silly, and they'll make sure it gets on the news.

Anyone who thinks they are inviting him so they can have meaningful dialogue is naiive.
 
Problem Child said:
And what would happen if Al gore turned down a chance to speak at an NRA convention?

Would he be branded a coward, unwilling to try and change the voting habits of a group that vehemently opposes him, or a stand-up guy for not bowing to political pressures?

Damn, I wish I hadn't opened this thread. But since I did, here I go again.

First, I'm not at all sure even if he had won the NRA would ask Gore to speak. I do not agree with a lot of NRA policies which is why I dropped my membership after it ceased to be a sportsman's organization and strictly a gun lobby. But they do stand for what they believe and don't have any problem telling you what that is.

Second, I looked back up thru this thread and never once saw the term coward used as a reasom Bush was not speaking. I don't think it would apply to Gore in the context you presented either. But I don't think it would be a particularly smart move for him to step into the lions den unarmed either. Unless you have a message that your audience wants to hear, arn't you wasting their time as well as your own. People come to conventions to gather with like minded individuals. Unless either man had something substanstial to offer to the groups mentioned, I think its good politics to stay away from situations so full of perials.

But, that is just one mans opinion.
 
evil despicable ad???

Why don't you call them a bunch of neener heads while you're at it. Bush doesn't have to go. Bush doesn't want to go. Simple as that.

90% voted Democrat you say? Hard to see why.
 
Thank you for expanding upon what I said...macropolitical, micropolitical...yada, yada....yes, I know your brain is bigger than mine.

My point was that they are both powerful political lobbies. And the only reason politicians go to speak to powerful political lobbies in the end is to get votes. You should know this.

I didn't even address whether or not he should or shouldn't do it based on what's right or wrong. I said he shouldn't do it based on how they had treated him in the past.

There's no point in doing it because he's not going to gain from it politically. The NAACP is not going to change the way the vote because George comes and talks to them.

Is he wrong to turn them down? Yes, I think so. He should grow some balls and go speak to them. Then at least he could say he had listened to their concerns. I don't think it would win him any votes in 2004, but it would improve his image somewhat.

And dont call me sweets, baby.

:)
 
Re: evil despicable ad???

EBW said:
Why don't you call them a bunch of neener heads while you're at it. Bush doesn't have to go. Bush doesn't want to go. Simple as that.

90% voted Democrat you say? Hard to see why.

EBW- the NAACP always votes 90+% democratic. That's sort of the whole point.
 
Re: Re: evil despicable ad???

Problem Child said:


EBW- the NAACP always votes 90+% democratic. That's sort of the whole point.

Yes and it sure is hard to see why they think the party biggest on the promotion of the people they represent is the Democrats.

And the 90% actually refers to African Americans as a whole.
 
Problem Child said:

There's no point in doing it because he's not going to gain from it politically. The NAACP is not going to change the way the vote because George comes and talks to them.

:)

That's right kids. W cannot win people over with his(his writer's) words. He can't change the way people think about things. Imagine, having a world leader who could shift peoples views with powerful statements and compelling arguments. Ridiculous.

Besides, Bob Jones University might come a' calling and George has to keep his Schedule free just in case he gets another chance to take a wack at us filthy papists.
 
I know. The NAACP as a an organization probably votes much higher than 90% democratic.

Look...I understand that the think the Democratic party is going to address their needs better than the Republicans. That's not the argument.

The question is whether or not Bush owes them a visit after the ads they ran.

Did you see the ads we're talking about? They were truly despicable as WriterDom says. I am no supporter of Bush, believe me. I think the man is an idiot, but no one deserves to be smeared like that, not even Bill Clinton...hehe
 
Okay, I don't really have a big opinion on the issue at hand, but I'm pretty sure African Americans do NOT vote 90% plus democratic. The figure is actually much lower, below 50%. The largest democratic minority/interest group is the Jews, who vote at about 60% democratic.
 
EBW said:


That's right kids. W cannot win people over with his(his writer's) words. He can't change the way people think about things. Imagine, having a world leader who could shift peoples views with powerful statements and compelling arguments. Ridiculous.

Besides, Bob Jones University might come a' calling and George has to keep his Schedule free just in case he gets another chance to take a wack at us filthy papists.

That's funny, but it really is naiive. I hope you really don't believe the NAACP is going to give any kind of credit to ol' Georgie, or support him in any way in the next election. I thought you understood American politics better than that.

It'd also hypocritical to criticize him constantly and call him a dope, and them make him out to be a persuasive world leader.

At least I call him a dope with consistency.
 
Problem Child said:

The question is whether or not Bush owes them a visit after the ads they ran.

Did you see the ads we're talking about? They were truly despicable as WriterDom says. I am no supporter of Bush, believe me. I think the man is an idiot, but no one deserves to be smeared like that, not even Bill Clinton...hehe

Shucks, if what we're asking is whether Bush owes them a visit then the answer is fairly obviously no. The man elected to the White House doesn't really owe anybody anything.

The question lav was getting at and I may be wrong here is why did Bush say no? Because they hurt his feelings trying to get their man elected? That's a an awfully mature attitude to take.

But on a completely removed sense doesn't Bush only stand to lose by saying no, and look gracious by saying yes? It is a move that baffles me politically.

BTW I don't think W is in any kind of position to get pissy about negative ads after the smear job he hit McCain with. Cry me a river Fauntleroy.
 
Pyper said:
Okay, I don't really have a big opinion on the issue at hand, but I'm pretty sure African Americans do NOT vote 90% plus democratic. The figure is actually much lower, below 50%. The largest democratic minority/interest group is the Jews, who vote at about 60% democratic.

You're wrong. Sorry.
 
I is? Well, I got that from a AP U.S. Government textbook, which I am afraid I do not have on hand. Do you have a source for your statement?
 
Back
Top