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.