Bush declines NAACP for 4th consecutive time
 

Bush says no to NAACP convention
By Steve Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush has declined for the fourth consecutive year to address the annual NAACP convention, which begins Sunday in Philadelphia.
The president's refusal to address the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has puzzled and angered leaders of the group, which has been critical of the president in the past.
"The truth of the matter is that he has turned us down four out of four times since he became president," said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington office.
"We have 500,000 members across the United States as well as membership units in the military," the director said. "It is a loud voice, and it seems to me that the president of an entire country would want to speak with that voice."
NAACP President Kweisi Mfume told the Wilmington (N.C.) Journal this week that "Mr. Bush has now distinguished himself as the first president since Warren Harding who has not met with the NAACP. So, we've got a 95-year history and a president that's prepared to take us back to the days of Jim Crow segregation and dominance, an era where dialogue is required, not distance."
An NAACP spokesman said the president was sent an invitation in December. In a letter received by the NAACP late last month, Mr. Bush declined the invitation, cited conflicting engagements. Sen. John Kerry is confirmed to speak at the convention on Thursday.
The president's only appearance before the group was at its 2000 convention in Baltimore, when he was the Republican presidential candidate.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday that "we had other scheduling commitments at the time" of the convention.
The president, though, has other reasons for dismissing the NAACP. Sources said yesterday that Mr. Bush reportedly was "personally hurt" by an ad run by a group loosely connected to the NAACP during the 2000 presidential contest, portraying him as unsympathetic to James Byrd, the black Texan who was dragged to his death by three white men.
Furthermore, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said last year at the group's convention that Republicans appeal "to the dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality."
The NAACP has, over the years, been accused by conservatives of openly pursuing a liberal agenda.
Still, Mr. Bush, who received 8 percent of the nation's black vote in 2000, has little to lose by appearing at the convention.
"From our perspective, it is always good for the president to appear before all groups to articulate his continued vision for the country," said Alvin Williams, president of the conservative Black America's Political Action Committee. "But I think he does feel offended by the 2000 presidential campaign, when some very nasty things were alleged about him."
Also slated to appear at the convention is Bill Cosby, who has sparked debate with his recent public statements regarding irresponsibility in some segments of the black community. He is scheduled to perform at an event billed as a "comedy show" on Tuesday night.
"Those who want to hear the truth will come to see him," said James M. Kilby, former president of an NAACP chapter in Warren and Page counties in Virginia. "I think he will play well there."
In May, Mr. Cosby told people gathered at an NAACP event in Washington that "lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids — $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics?' "
Last week, appearing at the Rev. Jesse Jackson's annual Rainbow/PUSH conference in Chicago, Mr. Cosby told the audience that "you've got to stop beating up your women because you can't find a job because you didn't want to get an education and now you're [earning] minimum wage."

Re: Bush declines NAACP for 4th consecutive time
 

Not true....as a group, Black American are typically religious and conservative. Many of us are actively seeking a reason not to vote democratic in the fall. Bush obviously doesn't want or need my vote. **smh**

Does the NAACP really represent Conservative and Religious black folks?

I know that they say that they represent ALL of you, but how can they? How do they?

The NAACP has always been squarely behind the Democratic party. You won't see Bush speaking at a Teamsters rally either.

Whatever ktsnake. WHATEVER! I crave the day when that man is shown the way out of Washington D.C. If it isn't this November, then I thank the Good Lord that he will be gone in four years and hope that the next president is better.

-and the NAACP has not always been squarely behind the Democratic party. There you go again with your generalizations. Do you even know how old this organizations is?

You just said you disliked Bush and don't want him in the White House anymore.

You did nothing to address my questions. The questions are somewhat rhetorical. I just mean to show that Bush's reason for not addressing the NAACP is similar to the reason that he will not address the Teamsters.

We're talking about recent history.

That's not what you said.

You're absolutely right I did not respond to those so-called rhetorical questions you posed and I am not going to. If you know anything about American history, (which you actually may not, since you said it's always been squarely behind the Democratic party) then you should know how they represent and have helped ALL Black Americans and although I may not agree with every position they take on every issue, I will NEVER belittle their cause or what they have been able to make happen for me, my family, my community, my people or my country.

Since you have made it clear to me that you may not know as much about American history as I thought you did, then I may need to remind or inform you that his and your party is the same party who opened it's loving arms to the members and the children of the group in this country who fought and killed over the passage of civil rights laws in this country and that is his base. His refrain from addressing this group was because of THAT. He did not want that symbolism put before that base and that is not the same basis for his not addressing the teamsters. You need to either wake up or read a book.

The history of the last 50 years is irrelevant to this election cycle. What the NAACP was is not necessarily what it is today. How it used to accomplish things is not how it now accomplishes things. Its mission is the same (and is admirable), but who through and the methods used to reach its goals are very politically divisive.

And it what it comes down to is that none of us knows his true reason for declining their invite. You'll have your opinion and I'll have mine.

I think that's shameful, really. Even if the organization upset him at some point, it really looks like he's telling an entire segment of the population of the country that he doesn't give a rat's ass about them.

Exactly.

How many of the Democratic canditates spoke to the NAACP during the primary? As I remember most of the candidates blew off the NAACP invitation. If Kerry didn't go does that mean he doesn't give a rat's ass about them?

No, he's telling a specific organization that he doesn't give a rat's ass about them. The organization just claims to speak for an entire people.

Well then, maybe I missed it -- how is he reaching out to the black population?

In January, he asked the congress to authorize 15 Billion to fight AIDS.

He had a great ceremony at the White House to commemorate the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

He DID appear and speak for the National Urban League last year.
There are other examples. I(link)

It's the simple fact that this is an election year, and he's allocating his limited time to speak in places where he'll win the most votes. That in mind, you can see why he would ignore the NAACP's overtures. They are currently (is that fair?) a very partisan group and they're not changing sides of the aisle any time soon.

Let me ask you this: Had he spoken there, would you have voted differently?

Is AIDS only a black issue?

Well, I'm not black, so I don't know if my vote matters in terms of the NAACP, but I wouldn't vote for Bush if he came to my house and begged me, so the answer would be no. ;)

Most of that money he was speaking about in the speach that I referenced on his site is going to Africa (AIDS $ that is).

The purpose of speaches during elections is to win votes or to get money. Since speaking for the NAACP would accomplish neither of these things for the President in my estimation (and apparently his as well), he didn't do it.

He has spoken at primarilly black forums such as the National Urban League, but it seems that the NAACP is not on his good list.

But what if he showed up and tap danced naked with a rose in his teeth? Would you vote for him then? :D

Now that is a scary thought.

I think people are reading way too much into this. If Bush doesn't formally address the NAACP, it doesn't mean he's against all African Americans, it means he's smart enough to campaign where he can actually win votes. The NAACP is not one of those places. If Bush had addressed the NAACP everyday of his presidency, I still doubt that he would win even 10% of that organization's votes.

Let Bush decline to speak to the NAACP. Some might even say that the NAACP has become less and less relevant. I know that, in my community--which has a large black "professional" population, the NAACP is seen as a group that could do well, but gets tied up in falsehoods and political intrigue. I'm sure it's like that in a lot of other cities as well.

I don't care where Bush sends money to fight AIDS, as long as he does it without being judgemental. Just because I'm black, it doesn't mean I care more about AIDS money going to Africa than if it went to Bangkok or the Bronx.

Reading too much into this? Oh come on! I'm sure if Kerry had done the same over the last four years you would have posted no less than three threads on the subject.

probably about 10. definitely not the way of the cougar.

With the NAACP being so upset about a white girl being called a name, who knew they would have time for President Bush.

-Rudey

This is so true! Why would Bush waste..yes I said it WASTE time talking to the NAACP? They are nothing but flunkies of the Democratic party who try to come off as if they are for the advancement of folks. Why go and listen to people wine and complain about you..and what you haven't done..and how racist you are..knowing they aren't going to vote for you. The NAACP has done some great work for black folks in the past...but I can't stand behind much they do in the present.

Smart move on Bush's part.

NAACP Chairman Compares Republicans to Terrorists
 

Now with an organization espousing such nonsense..why would GWB give them the time of day??? In one vein I think Bush could have sent a video, taped statement or something LOL..but I really wouldn't want to walk into a meeting with people that clearly don't want to really "hear" what I had to say.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Arch...20040603a.html

Washington (CNSNews.com) - In remarks to hundreds of cheering liberal activists Wednesday, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond singled out Republicans as enemies of black Americans and compared conservatives to the terrorist Taliban who once ruled Afghanistan.

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," Bond told a cheering audience. "They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."

See, mess like this this is why I choose not to renew my membership two years ago and probably never will.

Can I ask how it is that the President of the United States can reach out to the black community? I can only think of one recent president that has and I hope that going to church and gentrifying a black community isn't the answer.

-Rudey
--Oh and things that are specific to the black community and not to economic classes

No AIDS is not only a black issue..but it affects the African American community in disproportionate numbers when compared to other communities.

I didn't realize that. I found a fact sheet from the CDC. Here is the link. It is pretty informative.

Do they have one for income classes or just based on race?

-Rudey

Am I the only person who doesn't care that he doesn't want to speak to the NAACP? Should we even expect him to? And if he did we would say "oh, its only because elections are coming up":rolleyes:

I've known that for quite some time. Even as early as the late 1980s, African-American women were contracting the virus at faster rates than the general population--because the earliest risk groups, gay men and hemophiliacs, were protecting themselves and their infection rate dropped.

A lot of us are wondering why anyone should care. But there will still be those that express shock and outrage.

They say he's the first sitting President since whosiwhatsit to not make an appearance at the NAACP convention during his presidency.

I would counter by saying this isn't the same NAACP that all the other presidents visited.

BINGO!!!!

The new infection and diagnosis rate among gay men is increasing, and I thought that they had passed the rates of African Americans. Plus there are people who fit into two groups like gay African American men. I haven't been up to date about the AIDS epidemic in the USA since I don't know any people with it anymore.

I must be honest and say that I think that it's an age thing. Since you are still a student and were in college not so long ago, you probably had more access to information. When I was in school, they had programs about safe/safer sex education and condom distribution. It's difficult to get the word out to people who are no longer in a college or university environment. In other words, AIDS education is no longer in my face and readily available. The last conversation that I have had about AIDS and HIV was when I went to my doctor who told me in explicit detail how to protect myself. She said that she tells all of her patients that because she has an obligation to protect them and keep them informed. I wonder how many doctors do that. I wonder how many of the new diagnosed cases actually have regular medical exams.

I hear your point..but I think alot of people choose not to be informed. after college its all about how much you want to seek out information. ..if all you do is feed your mind with non-current events stuff i.e. not watching the news/reading the paper..only reading Fiction..etc....you will be in the dark about a lot of things.

AA women were getting the virus @ higher rates because of all the brothers on the down low.

Good point. I agree that we all have a responsibility to educate ourselves. The problem is that some segments of the population and some places in the world do not seek out or do not have access to accurate information.

I'm actually going to say no with that one. Plenty of my friends--who were in college at the same place and time that I was--chose not to listen to the safer sex information. I had a friend that--in 2003!--would gauge whether or not to use a condom based on how her partners looked. My parents, who were in the arts in the early 80s and saw an amazing amount of their friends DIE, made sure my sister and I knew how to protect ourselves. That, not the access you have in school, often makes all of the difference. Also, every OB/GYN I've gone to in 7 years has given the AIDS talk--and how AA women have historically been one of the fastest-growing groups with the disease.

On a side note--my sister, who's about your age (if not a little older) has stayed very aware of what's going on in that field. Some of us just have to be aware of what's going on in our communities. It's not about age in this specific case.

The rate of infection for gay men has surpassed that of AA women (because the shadow of AIDS doesn't haunt young gay men the way it did 10, 15, or 20 years ago), but that's fairly recent.