Bush's snub of the NAACP proves just how petty he really is.

[jessikay1922]

Well from the article you posted, the information is out there that Target refused to provide the information....

And no, they don't have to fill out the questionaire if they choose not to do so.

I wouldn't worry about Target... I'm sure they will respond in what they think is their best interest in light of a possible "boycott."

[shinerbock]

Well I don't really agree with much of what the NAACP does, but if they merely said "We can't speak on Target, they did not respond to the survey," I think that would be fine. However, I don't like the situation they try and create where companies and schools are basically forced to answer to the NAACP.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by jessikay1922

Well from the article you posted, the information is out there that Target refused to provide the information....

And no, they don't have to fill out the questionaire if they choose not to do so.

I wouldn't worry about Target... I'm sure they will respond in what they think is their best interest in light of a possible "boycott."

Wikipedia's article said that they actually rated Target with 2 Fs and a D- over the past 3 years.. I assume for NOT filling out the survey...

That's the part I don't like.

I don't know if it was the first article i posted or another I read that said several other stores didn't respond including Sears and Kohls.

It's all business to me. If Target thinks this will hurt their business they'll do something different. If not, they won't.

[AXEAM]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well the NAACP basically calling for a boycott of Target shows how petty they really are.

So why don't you start your own thread about that, this thread was started b/c of a subpar president's failure to meet with or acknowledge any concerns of people of color. As far as I'm concern the NAACP should tell Bush to go to hell...his response or shall I say lack of response to victims of Hurricane Katrina spoke volumes.

[Lady of Pearl]

Bush does not have empathy for minorities, public education, and those poor young soldiers -Black and White who are losing their lives daily in that war!

[ladygreek]

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

[shinerbock]

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.

[AXEAM]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[Wolfman]

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.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.