So now that his ratings have really tanked, Bush will address the NAACP convention. I'm mad they even extended him the invitation.

Have you ever wondered why Bush has turned down the NAACP the last several years? Probably because they slander him at every turn. The NAACP is not an innocent organization whose goal is to end prejudice and discrimination, it is a leftist political group which will strive to bring down any Republican president. Another reason is probably people like you, who blame him for the Hurricane Katrina disaster. I mean, I knew the country was on a slide, but I really never thought we'd see the day where an entire group of people would blame a President for a natural disaster. Newsflash: It isn't the government's responsibility to save you. Millions of people left New Orleans...no car? Start walking. Don't wait for someone in a helicopter to pick you up and bring you to a hotel in Houston. Heres another note that you obviously ignore, primary responsibility in disaster situation goes to localities and the state. For New Orleans, that meant the BLACK mayor, Ray Nagin, and the DEMOCRATIC Gov. Blanco. The best preparation for another sort of this disaster is not a new president or new FEMA chief, it is to teach personal responsibility. The lack of personal responsibility, along with you know, that HURRICANE, are the true entities to blame.

Maybe you need to go back and do some research, the NACCP was formed to combat the unfair treatment of people of color (like those victims of Katrina.) so as far as it being a leftist group that's bullshit. Noboby is blaming Bush for Katrina...he's being called on his response to Katrina , if those were whites instead of blacks the response would have been much different. Saying Bush didn't meet w/ the NAACP b/c they slandered him is asinine there is a difference between slander and criticism.

Why would I need to do research? The original purpose of the NAACP has nothing to do with how it functions now. I can say that Fox News or CNN are unbiased news channels, as they claim to be, but that is obviously untrue. The NAACP comes out against Republican policy all the time, regardless of racial issues. The idea that it remains the same legitimate and valuable organization todayas it originally was is complete and utter nonsense. The whole "if they were white, it'd have been different," idea is completely hypothetical, and also utterly stupid. The reason the response was slow is because the people who were supposed to help first (the city, the state) were not prepared. If you stay in a city, especially one like New Orleans, as a Cat 4 hurricane bears down on you, you have no right to complain about response time. By staying, you've given up that right. Once again, it is not the government's responsibility to fix everything. I imagine shooting at helicopters probably isn't a good way to speed up the process, either.

Bush does not have to address the NAACP;it may be politic for him to do so. I think it would signal some growth in him as an ethical politician and statesman:just as he is President, even though some think that (in terms of his first term) it was illegitimate. I respect his position, even where I may disagree with many of his policy positions. Similarly, to be a true statesman one has to realize the one represents ALL the people, not just your political cronies or your ideological compatriots. The Bush White House staff has a storied history of sheltering him from anything that will put him at a disavantage, that would potentially make him look bad or won't give him a good photo op. He has to govern like a statesman, which means taking the heat and knowing how to handle himself under pressure, standing up for what he believes in a potentially less than hospitable environment.

I think you make some very good points. My only contention regards the situation the NAACP has put him in. Unfortunately we are at the point in this political era where special interests don't actually represent the people they claim to. Now I'm sure the NAACP represents issues that black Americans care about, but they are not simply a concerned group of citizens. The same is true of any special interest group, teachers or blue collar unions, corporations, religious groups, etc...I feel the President has an obligation to answer to the people, as his constituents. However, I DO NOT feel that the President has to answer to special interest groups which represent much more than just a group of like minded people. Thus, I think when groups try and dictate the actions of the President, be it the NAACP or the Christian Coalition, I think it is a great disrespect to the office.

Look, the "mess" you describe is simply what politics has devolved to. This is the bread and butter of right wing politics;they are the masters of this type of thing. Bush relishes this when it comes to his political base:he gets his people to make calls to Christian Right groups (who don't speak for all Christians!) to drum up support for his initiatives.The problem is this: the sword cuts both ways. If you live by it, you'll die by, as Jesus so clearly stated. My issue is this:don't cry foul if other pressure groups opposed to you do the same thing as the ones you support, as if what they do is illegitimate. To Bush:be a man and play the game, and don't feign being a statesman and self-righteously above the fray when your ox is being gored, when you use ideological pressure groups to do your bidding.

Can you claify some things here.... Is the NAACP a "special interest that doesn't actually represent the people they claim to"? And if so, then who, exactly do they represent? What or who is this wider circle you apparently think the NAACP represents that the president need not address? And if he need not address them, then what "situation" have they really put him in?

5.5 years into an administration, there’s nothing new George Bush, or any president for that matter, can tell the NAACP about his vision vis-a-via black people. He has a record, from which people can make their own determinations about his “vision.”

Bush's speech appearance is simply "political stagecraft" for both he and the NAACP. Bush wants to appear sensitive and inclusive going into what appear to be tough midterm elections for his party. Bruce Gordon, new NAACP CEO, wants to be seen as a different type of leader; more pragmatic, inclusive, effective, less vitriolic in his approach. So each needs this "performance" for different reasons.

As to the reference in earlier posts to the heat the Bush admin. takes over Katrina, it's because a lot of people feel the federal gov'ts mishandling was bigger. No one is absolving the Blanco and Nagin administrations for their culpability, but no American city could reasonably be expected to handle a disaster of that magnitude. To have the federal government unprepared to mobilize 4 days into a disaster they saw coming three days before it hit is still hard to understand, and we're almost a year after the fact.

Well, I realize this is current politics. I do disagree however, that this is right wing politics. The left caters to special interests just as much. However, I don't blame Bush at all for not going to the NAACP earlier, as there is really no reason to. It is highly unlikely he'll pull any of the NAACP vote, despite any efforts. The NAACP works pretty diligently to discredit Bush at every turn, so why would he go to them with nothing to be gained from it? It seems you understand politics, so naturally you understand how it would look for a president to be essentially pressed into making an appearance. It is obviously weakening.

I agree that he doesn't have to speak before the NAACP;but if he does it may be a sign that, against the grain of today's politics he is elevating himself to the position of a statesman. Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin, who for the sake of what was RIGHT, for the future of their nations and not their careers,took courageous stands, and paid for it with their lives, by their own people, when it was not "politic" to do so. This is very rare;it takes true courage and not simply canned rhetoric and symbolic actions of playing to one's own base all the time.

I agree with you. I do think, however, that it is difficult to become a statesman in American politics. The political arena is so divided that one must try and balance his base, listen to the people, and handle the opposition all at once. I think that sometime in the semi-near future we will have leader capable of this. I believe the way to do it would be in the manner of Ronald Reagan...even when times were rough, he reached out to Americans to the degree that his opposition was forced to listen and work with him.

To the previous post: The NAACP is like any other special interest group. The "represent" an extremely broad group of people, but are also undermined by other interests. Like any special interest, they have the extreme of their group they must appeal to. Just as the Christian Coalition has to appease the extreme right evangelical crowd, the NAACP is often forced to go far to the left, to the Al Sharpton "interject race into every issue" crowd. Thus, while they in some manner represent black people as a group, they are not all encompassing. Just as the Christian Coalition only fully represents a percentage of Christians, the NAACP only does so for a percentage of black Americans...In regard to Katrina, of course the city and state can't handle a disaster like that, they've never had the real life experience to do so. Similarly, the administration had never experienced this, and was thus unprepared to resolve the situation quickly. However, I dont really find fault with either. It is not the state nor the administration's job to bail out citizens in every situation. Unfortunately we live in a society where people lack the personal responsibility to handle situations for themselves. Having been a child during Hurricane Hugo, I assure you there was nothing that could have kept my father from getting us out of coastal S.C. You simply don't take chances, and shouldn't, especially in a place like New Orleans. If you can't catch a flight, pack up and drive. If you don't have a car, try and hitch a ride. If you can't catch a ride, you start walking north. I, like all Americans, felt awful for those stranded in New Orleans, and prayed for their safety. However, despite the circumstances, those who stayed made a decision, and the government should not be held responsible for the consequences of those decisions.

Difficult to be a statesman? Mais oui! That's why they are rare. Another statesman. Nelson Mandela. After spending over two decades as a communist political prisoner in apartheid South Africa, saw beyond the narrow horizon of retribution and hate, buttressed by banal demagoguery, put the future of his nation before personal needs for racial or ethnic vindication. And with people like Archbp. Tutu chose the path of healing in instituting the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, a fully Christian-inspired political solution to moving past the horrible and corrupt history oppression and violence in that country. These actions came out of suffering and the desires to do right for the people and not for political expediency. It is possible but one has to be willing, as Jesus says, to give up one's own life,including political life. Both Mandela and Tutu had wrestled with this and came out of the other side, while political hacks are all about self-preservation. The Republicans in light of Newt Gingrinch's "revolution" has shown that it is no better than the Dems in falling prey to the corruption of money and power. We are now in the throes of power games to see who will control the coffers so that they can divy out favors to their people.

Bruh.. comparing Bush to the likes of Mandela and Tutu is like comparing apples to oranges, Bush's character falls far short of Mandela's and Tutu's.

I wasn't comparing Bush to anyone per se, just holding up what statesman can or should be. One's ideological bent is not necessarily a reflection of character. Personally, I do think many African Americans are off-base with Bush: they confuse character and ideology. By all accounts Bush is has no racial animus vs. blacks;and he seems to be a personable and funny man. Now, he's a politician and he's surrounded himself with people to do his dirty work and push his agenda.Now, one can vehemently disagree with a policy prescriptions and their ideological underpinnings withour stooping to unwarranted personal attacks. This is important for two reasons. When we play this game of demagogues, we risk making people blind to REAL issues and how to attack them, and people are reduced to consumers of propaganda and give up their critical thinking skills, and are the mercy of unscrupulous political hacks because what becomes important are symbols which pols use to manipulate people's basest emotions and fears. This is how a Hitler can come to power given the right circumstances, and how some Republicans have adroitly played on racial fears, and some so-called black leaders play on our fears to corral us into the Democratic camp,and are self-serving.

The examples I used were in contrast to the apparently more conservative bent of Mon. Shinerbock, to show that principled leaders and statesmanship is not a function of one's ideology or party. People can, for the sake of what is right, transcend their partisan inclinations and political bases and do what is right, if they so choose.

There is a second reason why this is important to me:it grows out of my convictions as a Christian believer. I believe that all human beings are created in the image of God; therefore we are accorded freedom of choice, and our ultimate identity and destiny is grounded in God. We cannot make God-like judgments about people to pigeon hole them so that we can dehumanize them,even if they are diametrically opposed to us. Out of this understanding of God as creator of all is Jesus' summons to love one's enemy. People can change,even though it can be hard, given the reality of evil and pressures to conform. The examples I used did this, from Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin to Mandela and Archbishop Tutu, men of very different religions, ideologies,etc. who for the sake of their peoples and higher principles chose the high road--the road of statesmanship. Bush can do the same, if he choosed to. That's the point I was making.