You will not see this on the Network News...

[Markov Cain]

Or in the Print Media, like the Times & the Post.

Civil Rights Leader Questions NAACP's Legitimacy

In an open letter to National Association for the Advancement of Colored People chairman Julian Bond, conservative civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson accused his group Tuesday of putting the interests of the Democratic Party ahead of the well being of African-Americans.
"It has become clear to me and other observers, black and white, that the NAACP no longer stands for the advancement of black people, but instead, stands for the advancement of the Democratic Party and its partisan platforms," Peterson said.
"This is evidenced by your virtual endorsements of Bill Clinton and Al Gore in their bids for the Presidency."
…
"Last fall, in the heat of the Presidential race, your organization sponsored an advertisement in which it was implied that the Republican candidate for President, George W. Bush, was somehow responsible for the dragging death of a black man in Texas, due to the fact that Mr. Bush had refused to sign 'Hate Crimes' legislation when he was governor of the state.
"At your recent national convention, you yourself were quoted as saying that some of President Bush’s nominations were from the 'Taliban wing of American politics,' likening them to the radical governing body of Afghanistan.
"You also stated that Attorney General John Ashcroft and Interior Secretary Gale Norton were 'nearly canine' in their devotion to the long-dead Confederacy.
"A speaker at your event reportedly 'joked' that she’d been anxiously waiting for Republican Senator Strom Thurmond to die – your organization’s intent is painfully clear to so many of us."
…
"I believe that you are no longer deserving of receiving Americans’ hard-earned money or precious time, and that anyone who supports your organization is financing their own destruction."

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/7/31/224301

 

[rambling man]

I wonder why an administration that has appointed blacks to more high positions in government than ever is catagorized as racist.

I think the Dems and the NAACP see the increasing movement of wealthy and middle-class blacks to the Republican Party and are scared

 

[Markov Cain]

Yes they are. I've been saying that to the Libs of this board for a year now and the keep pooh-poohing me.

Our middle class is becoming very multi-racial and despite the Liberal educational system, better educated.

 

[rambling man]

and when you talk about the leaders among blacks in each party, the NAACP's are always hyper, jumpy and defensive. Look at Colin Powell, his son who heads the FCC, JC Watts, Rice...hell even Charles Barkley, the possible future governor of Alabama...they are all much more intelligent about so many more issues than the democratic leaders who keep spouting the same old lines over and over.
Black Republicans seem to be addressing real world issues at home and abroad, like poverty at home and slavery in Africa, with realistic proposals for solutions. I think they act from a certain courage because they bucked the trend and risked the anger of their friends and family. That's what makes them real leaders. Within a few years there will be more speaking out among black Republicans and they will begin to flex their power.
As for Strom Thurmond, he gets a majority of the black vote in South Carolina time and time again

 

[WriterDom]

The first black president will be a republican.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

And? And? And? And? And? And? And? And? And? And? And?

You will not see this on the Network News...Or in the Print Media, like the Times & the Post.

I wrote a letter to Ralph Nader once. How come 60 Minutes didn't do a feature? Damn liberal media keeping us all in the dark.

 

[shadowsource]

Yes, nominate Colin Powell!

And see how many Southern States your GOP stalwart captures....

 

[Weevil]

In response to the original article I would humbly submit the idea that the NAACP most likely appears to be mainly interested in advancing the Democrats because the Democrats, in turn, would be better for minorities and the poor. The people they are interested in advancing(African Americans if you will) seem to agree, we all know the percentage of them who vote democrat. I would also humbly submit that by being a non-partisan organization they would be the very thing you accuse them of, not representing their constituency.

Rambling Man, I'm not sure you need to make ridiculous claims that Black Republicans are somehow more intelligent than Black Democrats in order for you to make your point. Charles Barkley, by the way, never struck me as a very intelligent man.

Also, many of you keep harping on the appointments of Rice and Powell as proof that the Bush administration is the best administration for African Americans ever. No mention of how they are making life better for the average minority, no new initiatives or attempts to reach out to said groups(Bush turns down NAACP and what have you) simply pointing out that they have hired black people. It's called tokenization, which isn't a knock at Rice or Powell as Galahad mistakenly thought, and your interpretation of the appointments confirms it as such.

 

[rambling man]

bad word choice perhaps

I meant that these people are engaged in real issues that affect the world. Colin Powell has the State Department more involved in Africa and is taking an interest in the slavery issue. Domestic leaders are looking to expand economic opportunities rather than talk about pie in the sky foolishness like compensation for slavery.

Tokenism is appointing a black to be the Secretary of Paper Clips, not Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. Those positions really matter, not only here, but around the world. Colin Powell is the most powerful black man in the world (and I'm aware where Kofi Anan is from)

Better for the poor is open to interpretation. Does "better for the poor" mean keeping them at subsistence level generation after generation through welfare? That has been the Democratic approach for decades. The Republicans tried to initiate plans to improve access for minorities and the poor to some of the best private schools in the country. Why were the Democrats against that? Because they want them to stay in the same miserable, drug ridden megaschools that the Democrats encouraged cities to build?
So, Republicans want to give the poor better shots at a good education, Democrats want to keep them in crappy ass, low morale schools...keep them on welfare so they have less incentive to do better, and so on and so forth...

Boy, if I were a poor minority, I believe I would vote Republican. I sure as hell did when I was poor.

And as for Charles Barkley, I have read some interviews with him about politics, society, etc. He is extremely well-informed and has well-developed ideas about individual initiative....this is someone who grew up a poor minority in the deep South and became Republican....

 

[Weevil]

Tokenism is appointing a black to be the Secretary of Paper Clips, not Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. Those positions really matter, not only here, but around the world. Colin Powell is the most powerful black man in the world (and I'm aware where Kofi Anan is from)

Better for the poor is open to interpretation. Does "better for the poor" mean keeping them at subsistence level generation after generation through welfare? That has been the Democratic approach for decades. The Republicans tried to initiate plans to improve access for minorities and the poor to some of the best private schools in the country. Why were the Democrats against that? Because they want them to stay in the same miserable, drug ridden megaschools that the Democrats encouraged cities to build?
So, Republicans want to give the poor better shots at a good education, Democrats want to keep them in crappy ass, low morale schools...keep them on welfare so they have less incentive to do better, and so on and so forth...

Boy, if I were a poor minority, I believe I would vote Republican. I sure as hell did when I was poor.

Tokenism can apply if someone is appointed to anything up to and including the vice presidency. If their hiring is used as "proof" of a persons or companies lack of racism than they have been hired, in part, to be a token what have you, simply to placate people who are leveling charges of anti-whatever at someone. If a company has a work force that is less than one percent african american and then hires a black VP it doesn't erase their problem, nor does it mean they aren't racist.

Better for the poor is open to interpretation but it isn't as open and shut as you would have us believe. Gore's tax cut would have benefitted the working poor far more than the one Bush passed will. If you look at things like the minimum wage, AA and tax cuts than it is pretty obvious as to why most minorities and the poor think that the Democrats is their party of choice.

 

[miles]

EBW

How would you make life better for black people? I'd love to hear your opinion.

You're right - Gore would have given the working poor what you call a "tax break". You are assuming the working poor pays taxes. They pay nothing. In fact, the government pays THEM in a vote-buying program aptly misnamed the Earned Income Tax Credit. Tax break my ass.

The Democratic Party has enslaved the welfare class and trapped them into a legacy of failure. The party who cares so deeply for minorities has brought about a generation of fatherless families dependent on the government. Where is the outrage that 25% of all black men are under supervision of the judicial system? These young men have no father figure to model. No work ethic to emulate. They are becoming a lost generation.

"Whoever robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's vote."

The Democrats have done a brilliant job lying to minorities and senior citizens about how the evil Republicans are going to starve them and take their money. Democrats thrive on failure, and when there is no failure, they create it so they can come to the rescue. Health care is a perfect example. We are well on our way to socialized medicine. It ensures more government growth, more dependence, and of course, more power for politicians. Yep, they are going to fix it. The sad fact is that aside from the military, the government fucks up every service it tries to deliver. Public education. Social Security. Welfare. I guess that's not enough. Let's get them to perform health care!

You ain't seen nothin' yet.